The problem with this line of thinking is that you expect philosophy to offer predictive, objective power. This does not need to be the case - the same reason why a good piece of literature need not have an objective moral lesson.
Philosophy postulates interesting questions, and the mass of previous philosophers provides some direction in the exploration of said questions - the expectation that these questions even have an answer, much less a falsifiable one, is unreasonable.
> The problem with this line of thinking is that you expect philosophy to offer predictive, objective power. This does not need to be the case - the same reason why a good piece of literature need not have an objective moral lesson.
So if philosophy is art, why do some philosophers think it needs to be respected on the same level as physics when it comes to understanding the world?
What does it even mean to provide an "understanding of the world" if you're not offering predictive, objective power? As far as I know, understanding the world---by definition---means building a mental model of it that has predictive power.
Philosophy postulates interesting questions, and the mass of previous philosophers provides some direction in the exploration of said questions - the expectation that these questions even have an answer, much less a falsifiable one, is unreasonable.