In many ways, every discipline starts from “evidence.” But the critique I was addressing is that philosophers ignore scientific evidence. And my defense is directed at that. Once I thought about it for a while, it’s true. We don’t dabble with scientific evidence. Because once there is scientific evidence for the questions we’re dealing with, we know all too well that we’re talking beyond our expertise.
As for your examples on epistemology and ethics, yes, I agree. But once again, I’m not saying evidence has no role whatsoever in philosophy. The fact we’re determining whether those pieces of evidence qualify as a philosophical argument for, say, what’s morally right or wrong shows that we don’t have concrete hermeneutics for evidence.
As for your last comment, I think you’re aware philosophers do invest time to debate hypothetical scenarios all the time. We talk about evil demons, the experience machine, and, yes, theoretical live forms, etc. These thought experiments are often far-fetched. We indulge in them because it tests our theories and intuitions.
However, I think this part concerns practicality, rather than evidence.