>
The problem is not that I don't know what philosophers think about, the problem is that I do -- see deconstructive postmodernism as one entirely typical example.It seems that is the only branch of philosophy you are familiar with, because what you are doing is generalizing your misinformed notions of one school of thought and applying it to an entire field. A good critical thinking philosopher would not do that, or at least be so sure of himself while doing it.
> "Simply put, it's the idea that there are no shared, objective truths and that everything is a matter of opinion."
This is beyond out-dated as a useful school of thought. Again, If you read Kant and Popper, they outlined why thinking along those lines is impractical and unproductive, which clearly you seem to agree with.
> You left out the part where scientists use gathered evidence to inductively shape and then test falsifiable theories about the evidence, a critical step without which it's not science.
This is true, however like I said, sir Karl Popper was the one that entirely defined this notion of falsifiability you're talking about. Furthermore, something can still be 'scientific' if it follows the traditional scientific method, but a proper scientific theory cannot be formed without valid falsifiability.
And to go back to your previous response:
> Is it your position that only those who have taken philosophy courses are qualified to criticize the field?
No, but it would be much more productive for society if people were more open to understanding the fields they hold strong opinions about before resorting to make misguided generalizations about them. This applies just as much to attacking philosophy the way you are, as it does to people who argue against vaccination/GMOs/whatever; anti-intellectualism is anti-intellectualism. Arguing as if from a stance of higher intellectual ground while making straw-man arguments everywhere is not a very fruitful argumentation technique.
Like I mentioned above, it seems you actually largely agree with a large important branch of philosophy here, yet you don't seem to be aware of it and are dismissing the entire field. 'Thinking Critically' has been thoroughly thought out by many philosophers throughout history, and that is what led to both Science and Mathematics; Philosophy wasn't just some fanciful step-cousin of literature, it's entire purpose was to formalize thought with the aims of eliminating the illogical.
So again, if you actually are interested in understanding why what you are saying is misinformed, please do read Popper at the very least his 'On the Sources of Knowledge and of Ignorance' and 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery' papers, because his thoughts are still prevalent in modern science and I think you will largely agree with them.