If you have a good understanding of consciousness / mind, you can derive the answer for most philosophical problems from that.
I'll just note that the philosophers who answered this survey do not appear to agree with you.
Scientists make ontological and metaphysical claims about the nature of the universe, and unless they avail themselves of the philosophy of science there are a lot of arguments that one can't defend against.. There are a lot of fundamentalists who avail themselves of Thomas Kuhn's argument that scientific progress is entirely just cultural consensus amongst scientists, and has no additional metaphysical reality.
Fighting off that argument is squarely in the philosophy of science, as is being able to articulate what it means to observe, theorize about, and know reality.
You're also right that there's only so much time in the day, but it depends on who you have to go through to get stuff done. Who do you need money, or approval from.
If I had a million dollars, I could buy your love.
* Content of consciousness is the only thing that we can be sure of. Let's say I'm scared. This fact is true no matter if I'm in a dream or hallucinating. (We could argue if "scared" is the correct label for the feeling but that's not the point.)
* It's impossible to define consciousness objectively. Subjective definition is simple: Consciousness is my current feelings, perceptions, thoughts, etc. There's no way to create a definition, that 1) is logically consistent 2) matches our intuitive understanding of consciousness 3) is objective: you can say whether some group of atoms (like brain) is conscious or not.
I admire your confidence.
If there was a rational counterargument hidden in that, I didn't find it unfortunately.
Many problems on that page are IMHO psychological or sociological problems, e.g. the ethical problems.
True, descriptive ethics is almost entirely composed of various facts about human psychology and sociology, but no normative claim can be deduced from these facts alone.