It doesn't mean that all areas have been proven, or that they all will be.
It is often that topics of philosophy have generated real outcomes, it may very well seem that philosophy -> real world outcome.
And consider the forum. It's not as if this is a university course in philosophy.
You seem to have found one thing to nitpick and ignored the rest of the response. Respectfully, I suggest you hang the ax back up, and stop pushing the pedal on the stone.
> What is wrong with newspapers nowadays? It seems the press decides someone's "fair game" and they just engage in the most blatant character assassination.
You're peering through time with rose-colored glasses.
American history is littered with instances using the press to smear and undermine the oppositions, whoever it may be.
The Founding Fathers, a number of them with close ties or financial stakes in printing press businesses, used it regularly to peddle an agenda.
Appearance and opinion have long mattered. Because they are really the only things we have on which to judge. Everyone has their own personal view and influencing that is the goal. Not truth. Never in the history of the nation has actual truth-seeking been the goal of the powers that be in politics or media.
Ideas like we're now in a "post-truth" world are bizarre. It's nearly a truism of the species to use a pedestal to smear enemies and endear to us our fans.
Did you notice the constraint:
> we generally don't particularly care about what they have to say anymore.
It's a human perspective way of saying it's not relevant to much the active work, but it still is being worked.