Philosophical versus scientific uncertainty

Hello, Your Honor.
Regarding the Rabbi’s conclusion in the fifth booklet that combining the claims creates a stronger and more plausible claim than separating them. The Rabbi wrote that there is no certainty but it is more plausible to claim this, and this is not a 50/50 doubt.
The rabbi also wrote that many of our decisions in life are built on theories, even scientific ones, even though they are uncertain.
So, even with regard to our scientific insights, we need to show humility and understand that, in all likelihood, due to uncertainty, they will be refuted sometime in the future, and we will act on them until they are refuted.
All of this is in science, but when it comes to philosophy, we can reach a dead end and have no way to refute it in the future because ultimately these are philosophical theories, and they have no hold on nature. But does the fact that we cannot refute it mean that it has no refutation?
The example of the fool is a philosophical assumption that connects with science, and therefore it will be possible to find a refutation for it in the future, and perhaps discover in the future that not every time a person behaves strangely he is also a fool. But a purely philosophical assumption with no basis in reality and for which no refutation is found in the future, does that mean that it has no refutation?