Historically, philosophy was done by people who didn't know anything scientific and didn't care.

Historically, that's not at all true.

Indeed, it doesn't seem crazy to define "social" as in "social animals" as "cooperation between...

This sentence cuts off mid-way, so I don't know what you intended to say. But I don't think there's a substantive connection between the sense in which human beings are social and the relationship between cells in a body. This seems to be an equivocation on the word 'social'. Almost none of my friends relate to me as if they and I were organs within a body. You have an example of the cell-citizen analogy here:

If rubbing antennas on an ant is just a continuation of nerve signal transport by non-ionic means, what about a conversation? My nerves fire, I yell at you to run to the left to cut off our preys exit, the sound waves excite the neurons behind your ears, the nerve signals get processed and propagate to your legs.

But this is vastly too simple (and, note, not an example of a conversation). If you can make sense of, say, convincing me that we should adopt a new tax code in terms similar moving one's arm, then I applaud you. But as it stands, it's an extraordinary claim, that you neither defend nor explain.

So, downvoted for being too rough a draft, for a minor but straightforward historical inaccuracy, and for an undefended and implausible central claim.