Dude is on the right track. But I would say that we likewise cannot reject ‘philosophy’ on a whole, like ‘breathing’ cannot be simply discounted through a manipulation of terms. Breathing what? Should be the question. Oxygen is usually good, but chlorine gas is not so good to breathe.
Hence, philosophy remains as indeed a vital and valuable resource method. For what, though? For accomplishing certain things. Hence we are not so righteous to think or assert we are not doing philosophy simply by calling it something else, using another term. “A rose by any name…” : leave it in place.
Then distinguish and define what it is capable of doing and what it is allowed to do, like every other activity that humans do.
Keep philosophy for what I (we) do. The issue is then conventional philosophy, that limiting and slightly blinded method. Let it do what it does. Stop with the move into the philosophical fashion and be honest about what you do. Let cashiers be cashiers, engineers be engineers, husbands be husbands, astronauts…etc…
Philosophers …. let philosophy have a division of labor. Ontology, epistemology , etc. are now one type of philosophical labor, some analytical, some phenomenological. Those all fall into one category, the conventional category.
And stop with the postmodern righteousness that says we can say self contradictory things without having to account for the contradictory move. Be honest.