philosophy

ah i should clarify, i meant "epistemic skepticism" rather than the general way we use the term skepticism, which is to say "there's nothing (or very little) we can Truly Know" (i.e. i came to the conclusion that, while philosophy is often fun and enriching, these questions are by and large unanswerable). living as more general skeptics is i'm sure how a lot of us became socialists. 

but the language around things being untestable as a way to dismiss them is kind of what i'm getting at, it seems you're operating with "scientific method = direct path to philosophical knowledge" as an a priori truth, which i think misunderstands a lot of what philosophy is about and the distinctions between the two fields. tons of philosophical questions are untestable by scientific standards, and the benchmark of testability already rests on a lot of interesting assumptions about the nature of & trustworthiness of consciousness (since scientific experiments rely on observations through the mechanisms of consciousness).

tbf, the impression i get is that a lot of modern analytic philosophers do the same thing (taking certain presuppositions of science as a priori truths in philosophy), casting philosophy as a "handmaiden of science" as they say. my cynical theory is that this has at least as much to do with inter-academic politics as it does genuinely felt positions, given how much capitalism favors STEM over the humanities.