Often times when some people seem to reason things about the world that are true moreso than others, the faulty reasoning is rooted in psychology. To think of one example: emotional reasoning.
Emotional reasoning is simply using affect as information (i.e. using your emotional state as evidence that something about the external world is true). However, recognizing that emotions aren't always evidence of something happening or recognizing that fearing X doesn't imply that X is true is by definition a philosophical concept. It's a step in reasoning.
I fail to see how these fields don't often go hand in hand. Why are they considered separate? Emotions have been shown to influence our reasoning processes time and time again. If anything, they have been shown to precede reason. And of course, we cannot reason without some motivational force sparking the process in the first place, which is often influenced by emotion.