I think it would be fair to flip that around: if your philosophy doesn't result in testable predictions, then what's the point?
Similarly I feel like there are philosophy-of-politics discussions that can (through political change) become the realm of actual politicians, sociologists, etc.
I apologize, but I'd like to flip your question about again. I think philosophy is the realm of the untestable, so in my mind you're asking "what's the point of philosophy". I think philosophy is the place to explore the full ramifications and implications of untestable ideas. I'd also ask what's the point of your question? If its not testable, I think its a philosophical question, QED. If it does result in a testable prediction, what's the test?
I think its a fair question if everyone should work on the problem, but I'm wondering if that same question could be applied to every problem?
I don't think many would agree that a mathematics degree should be made entirely of pottery electives. I'm not saying we shouldn't encourage mathematicians to dabble in pottery, I'm just saying pottery is not mathematics, like CTCs don't seem to me to be philosophy.
Note that something can be political or sociological and still be testable. You can have a utilitarian moral philosophy where you assign utilities and sum them up, then do surveys or focus groups to to measure agreement with the results.
But if a theory literally has no testable predictions? That is the definition of useless.
It's provable that things that are true are not demonstrable(see Gödel's incompleteness theorem). It follows that things that are not testable are true, and for some d definition of truth, it means they have an effect in the word. So we absolutely can, in a meaningful way, wonder about the posible consequences of something that while not testable may be true. Just because something it solely potentially meaningful does not mean it it's entirely meaningless.
As a scientific person, I'm only concerned with truth that derives directly from observation. "True but not demonstrable" is an oxymoron.
"Truth from observation is the only truth that matters."
Where can I also observe this?
Let me stop you right there. You can have a utilitarian moral philosophy, sure. But the question of if you ought to have such a philosophy is a philosophical one. To get to the point of having tests of optimized utility there is an underlying question that has no tests, which is are tests for utility really the best tests to run?
Its either turtles all the way down: tests testing the effectiveness of tests, or, you get into philosophy.
Have fun with your waste of a mind.
"Untestable philosophies are pointless" is an untestable philosophy, and therefore pointless by its own standards. This is a well-known problem with logical positivism, which is roughly the position you are advocating.