My guess would be that people aren't aware of the discourse you've been involved in regarding "philosophy" vs "academic philosophy". As stated, it seems like you're expressing something contradictory. Compare:

"philosophy...[is] not concerned with truth"
"people who can do good philosophy...[are] usually scientists"

You seem to be equivocating. In the first sense, I think you mean "academic philosophy" (the institution), while in the second, you mean... well, philosophy (love of wisdom / pursuit of truith).

Though I'd be surprised if anyone actually thought it through that clearly before downvoting.

My downvote was because I consider this sentence to be noise and inflammatory:

The fact that philosophy hasn't adopted such a model strongly suggests that it's not concerned with truth.

... And this sentence is anecdotal and coming from what I judge to be a biased position:

There are people who can do good philosophy - contrary to thomblake's assertion, I've found that they're virtually never people called 'philosophers'. They're usually scientists.

I downvoted but did not comment because any direct response in the lines of argument seem likely to delve into semantics on the definitions of philosopher, philosophy, scientist, and science. Also, on a more personal note, I have yet to get any meaningful value from a conversation with you. For whatever reason, my fault or yours, it is not worth my time.