When some philosophical subjects on humans are approached we commonly see signs of sociology, but further down we see neuroscience, then neuroanatomy, further we see nutrition biology and further nutrition.

These can all play key factors in understanding what we want to discover in philosophy; considering the fundamental nature of the field its easy to fall down the rabbit hole of having to study various fields of study to solidify an argument or philosophy.

As I see it you could take two approaches to this:
1. Is to study a neighbouring field in order to solidify understanding or confirmation in order to validate, but may require studying of other neighbouring fields in order to reach validation.
2. Is to study only the relevent subject matter in the fields that link to each other, but this lead to missing factors in the field or tunnel vision.

If a practitioner of philosophy has no specific fields then the latter is more ideal but requires a solid approach to how they learn or study and obviously if the philosopher has a specific field then the former is more ideal but can take considerably more time.

So what would be your approach?
Crawling through the rabbit hole? Digging it up? or some other method?