The best way to do that would be to do what philosophers of the mind do, and reject historical forms of [realism][1] like [objective reality][2], and [Cartesian duality][3]. Gilbert Ryle in his [*The Concept of Mind*][4] attacks Cartesian rationalism, and purports to show that the [mind-body duality][3] is a [category mistake][5]. In philosophy, the position that defends that psychology is source of knowledge is called [psychologism][6]. [Robert Audi][7] in his *Epistemology*, in fact, accepts that there are five sources of knowledge: perception, memory, consciousness, reason, and testimony. A single class in Psychology 101 would manifest the obviousness that these are the objects of empirical study. The position in the [analytical philosophical tradition][8] is that scientific statements about language ([pscholinguistics][9]) and mind ([cognitive science][10]) should be admitted into philosophical discourse, and thus elevate the importance of [empiricism][11] in philosophical debate. There is a long standing epistemic debate among various flavors of [rationalism][12] and [empiricism][11] regarding the certainty of [knowledge][13], and this philosophical clash is highlighted with the [Agrippan trilemma][14] which strikes at the heart of three types of rational argumentation, the axiomatic or foundational, the circular, or those of infinite regress. Ultimately, psycholinguists and philosophers who align themselves with empiricism ([Gilbert Ryle][15], [Jaegwon Kim][16], [Ray Jackendoff][17], [Steven Pinker][18], [Daniel Dennett][19], [George Lakoff][20], and [Mark Johnson][21], eg.) have leveled a series of philosophical attacks on objective realism in one way or another of various strengths. Dennett for instance is a [phsicalist][22] who argues their is only the physical and that consciousness is an illusion. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson advocate a philosophy they call embodied realism which rejects objective realism entirely. If you want a detailed roadmap because you accept cognitive science as a path to truth, consider reading [*Philosophy in the Flesh*][23] by Johnson and Lakoff who articulate an ontology that accepts both [supervenience][24] and rejects Cartesian duality. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy) [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Concept_of_Mind [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologism [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Audi [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy [9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycholinguistics [10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism [12]: http://. [13]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge [14]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma [15]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Ryle [16]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaegwon_Kim [17]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Jackendoff [18]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker [19]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett [20]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff [21]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Johnson_(philosopher) [22]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism [23]: https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Flesh-Embodied-Challenge-Western/dp/0465056741 [24]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervenience