But it takes philosophy to make the sorts of claims you make, making them self-refuting and incoherent. Perhaps the problem was not philosophy, but how you practiced it or how those you engaged with practiced it.
(Reply to second response)
W.r.t. the liberal arts, we must distinguish between genuine liberal arts and some decadent ersatz or blatantly ideological counterfeit. I don't wish to spend time making distinctions here and now, but it is worth keeping that in mind.
However, I should also note that what "the sciences"[0] give us is not a straightforward matter, either, and what they give us, the actual character of scientific aims, methods, research and results is precisely the domain of the philosophy of science. (My view is that a strong impetus in empirical science is mastery of nature and technological production, not necessarily the truth. The story is a bit more complicated than that, but I'll leave it here.) Empirical science is very much informed by background assumptions and can make metaphysical insinuations, assumptions and insinuations that are not the proper domain of the empirical sciences, but philosophy. The notion that science is magically free from the usual human foibles like unwarranted appeals to authority or bullying or ideological insinuation or whatever is, of course, false. Add to that the confusion that some scientists show when they fail to distinguish between science and scientism, for instance. Holding philosophical views or presuppositions, at least tacitly, can hardly be avoided.
W.r.t. scholasticism, I'm sorry if that was your experience, or your interpretation of your experience, but I would call that a thoroughly unjust characterization of scholasticism. Citations and giving credit is a normal part of any published work, but scholasticism is certainly not characterized by obsequious deference to prior authors (say, Aristotle; indeed, within the broad scope of what is traditionally called "scholasticism", you have varying views of, e.g., Aristotle). Scholasticism is famous for its rigorous disputations and appropriately draws from developments elsewhere.
[0] Even what the broad view of what "science" is will vary by language. The English/Anglophone meaning of "science" is generally the more restricted "empirical science", while, say, the German "Wissenschaft" is more inclusive and broad and it would seem closer to the classical or traditional view of a science as a body of systematized knowledge.