You mean explaining consciousness by QM (with which I disagree), or projecting classical macro properties — GraveItty

-"Well, I do not read bad philosophical articles."
-You may not, but many do. Metaphysics specifically suffer by bad non naturalistic speculative frameworks from philosophers and scientists who find a way to publish their ideas outside the difficult "audience" of science.

-"Why do you think academia is flooded by bad philosophy?"
-Again its not my personal thought. Its a fact that many philosophers point out.IF you subscribe to Academia.edu you will receive all kind of "news letters" on new publications spanning from "the role of intuition"(while Psychologist Daniel Kahneman won a Nobel in Economics by exposing intuition's untrustworthy nature as a heuristic) to papers about the " improper implications of an improper undertanding of genesis 1-1 and arguments on Ockham's razor simplicity(when its all about necessity).

-" It is also a tough proposition to test because there is less of an agreed upon method in philosophy than in the natural sciences."
-Not really , because its not about the method, even if Aristotle has defined the philosophical method almost ~2200 years ago. Its about epistemically failed and unfounded non naturalistic presumptions that people use to guide their interpretations.
Science has far more high numbers in its methodological approaches but the Principles(Methodological Naturalism) and standard of Evaluation are all the same. i.e. Sting Theory may not meet those standards(Objectivity, independent verification, falsifiability etc) but the principles behind its conclusions are naturalistic, in agreement with the current scientific paradigm and there are ideas on how to be tested with possible future technologies.

-"The problem is that you use similar criteria to judge the two enterprises, I think that is not productive. Studying the natural world is a different enterprise from studying the social world, let alone question our deep seated assumptions."
-This is what I argue. This is the reason why Philosophy only has a handful of major advances to display while Science as a philosophical category is enjoying a long lasting run away success in epistemology.
This is the main reason why most people still lose their time with pseudo philosophical principles .
Well we also have social sciences studying the "social world" but you don't see they using theology or idealism or supernaturalism to produce knowledge or wise claims on what we try to explain or solve.
Again the problem rises because of that Special Pleading you mention. The standards of logic and evaluation plus our principles SHOULD be the same for ALL our intellectual endeavors.
Sure Philosophy tackles a far wider spectrum of questions but that should not let it off the hook from obeying logic, verified epistemology and epistemically successful principles and presuppositions.

That is a common misconception many people hold about Philosophy. For some weird reason, the rules , criteria and principles of Logic shouldn't apply on our Philosophical inquiries. Verified knowledge can be ignore for the shake of people presumptions and Objectivity and evidence based evaluations are viewed as unnecessary in our conclusions.
All those attempts to free our thinking from the rules of logic and credible methods of evaluation are responsible for the see of pseudo philosophy that floods our philosophy daily.

-"They have pointed out the intertwinement of politics and science, where politics is understood in a broad sense. The nfluence of epistemic communities, different schools of thought, the importance of aqcademic prestige and the influence of publication pressure on the rigour of the scientific process. We see that in action in the corona pandemic. The science is the same right, however every country chooses different paths and virologists from Sweden disagree with those from the Netherlands and both are held in high regard in the scientific community."
-All those are true...but again in order to prove that those affect our body of epistemology you will need to point out cases where pseudo science has been accepted as scientific knowledge for respectful period.
You will not find any due to science's self correcting mechanism that philosophy doesn't have.
Independent verification is needed for any claim to be remain as part of our epistemology so any attempt to sneak in an idea (cold fusion,Sheldreak's woo) all fall short in the long run.

-"I do not know which journals you read... I do not see philosophy dealing with an outdated metaphysics."
-You need to investigate it. Try subscribing to some of them.

-"This result oriented view is actually exactly what might be criticized. You say "we should always judge a procedure by its outcomes" but whether we in fact should is a philosophical quetion not a scientific one. "
-Actually this is a criterion we use to identify pseudo philosophy..."philosophical" conclusions that insist in using epistemically failed principles or outdated knowledge in their interpretations.
So of course we should judge a philosophy when it doesn't offer WISE claims about our world. When the claims are for "other worlds or dimensions" the we are dealing with religious claims, not philosophical ideas that can assist us in understanding this world.

-"Good god, the screaming is hurting my ears. Luckily you do not get to decide what philosophers should do no matter how hard you wag your fist and how many capital letters you use. Of course learning can never harm, but you seem to buy into the iddea that there is one sort of criterion according to which every endeavour should be judged. It is an open question whether there is such a criterion."
-So IMHO you are part of the problem. There is not an open question about it. Its something that Bunge and Hoyningen and Richard Carrier and many others have being pointing out and it is something that can be verified by the results. ITs the reason why many scientists accuse Philosophy for not contributing to our advances...while they are doing philosophy to conclude to that position.
So Philosophy is not the problem here but how people tend to do philosophy!

-"Or we shpuld read people like Latour, Daston and Beck who take a sociological approach to science. That way science learns something about itself and that in the end is I think the goal of philosophy. It is a hermenutic endeavour and not as you seem to think a descriptive one."

-That is an irrelevant aspect that has nothing to do with the main problem of Philosophy. You are arguing about a completely different topic. Nothing of what I say keeps us from doing philosophy of science. And again... any hermenutic endeavour should be interpreted by the same standards and principles. — Tobias

However, I think it is a human condition. Hunting-gathering or anarchism or communism or whatever non-industiral-capital form won't change the condition of the needs of survival. It is life itself that puts (de facto) us all in a position of need, and work is one of the biggest (de facto) inescapable set of needs that cannot be overcome without dire consequences."
-I will agree with your conclusions. Its a condition that all animals(including us) must follow...except from our pets and livestock (maybe parasites too).
One problem though. Not all humans work since economic inequality is currently one of the last if not the only form of discrimination that's still acceptable by human societies. So human condition is defined by the position one has in his "environment".

We constantly have been inventing technical solutions that have alleviated or render human effort unnecessary for specific tasks and jobs. Unfortunately our economic system doesn't allow human ingenuity to offer technical solutions that could render repetitive boring works a thing of the past.
Working or to be more descriptive... doing a specific activity to earn your living might appear to be a human condition, but it is the main reason behind the collapse of our societies and the distraction of human relationships and our ecosystem.,

-"You don't want more people put into this injustice, don't procreate more people (workers) then."
Its nice to see that you also identify this injustice!...and yes consciously me and my wife took the decision not have children for this exact reason and I am amazed that other people also see that as a solution to this ethical dilemma. — schopenhauer1