What is the point of philosophy, if it can't answer the questions it asks?

I've always defended the value of philosophy in contrast to people who would claim science and or math are the only reliable sources of information. And, to be clear, I think the critical thinking and self-questioning skills developed through asking philosophical questions are definitely beneficial and useful.

However, the other day I was watching a debate between two philosophy graduates on skepticism. The skeptic argued while it is useful to accept certain things as true, there's really no way to ever prove anything with certainty--from whether morality is real all the way down to the law of non-contradiction. To be honest, this position seemed pretty convincing to me.

The main thing that struck me though was this: at the end of the debate they were asked to give advice to people interested in philosophy. The skeptic said this, "well I have been studying philosophy my entire life and the only thing I have learned is how much I don't know--so, my advice as someone who does philosophy to someone who doesn't is to keep not doing philosophy".

I mean, surely, that is true. Even renowned philosophers like Russell have claimed that the "beauty" of philosophy is showing how much we don't and can't know. What is beautiful about that? What is the point of wasting my life asking "how can I know anything?" if I'll never be able to know the answer. To be clear, it is certainly important to realize one's own ignorance, but people can realize that at an extremely introductory level. So, I guess more specifically what I'm asking is, what is the point of going past that?

What is the point of a subject in which the leading experts and academics are split 50/50 on each issue? Or 33/33/33 or even 25/25/25/25? How is that worth anything to anyone?

I guess the problem I'm having is this: While I wouldn't say Math or Science is necessarily "better" than Philosophy because it produces testable and observable results (because the way we understand math or science now could easily be wrong), but their development does seem to have unarguably bettered the world in certain ways (longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality rate, disease cures, efficient transportation, psychological therapy, etc.). So, I guess what I'm saying is, it seems more useful.

I don't really think the effects of philosophy have been remotely comparable. I agree that if everyone knew a little bit about philosophy the world would probably be a better place, but all those reasons have less to do with engaging with literature on "what is reality?" or "what is the good?" and more to do with being self-aware and critically thinking better.

Also, please spare me the "well, even to ask why philosophy is important is a philosophical question itself!" line. I've phrased the title provocatively in attempt to get more engagement, but what I'm really asking is this: What is the point of asking questions like "can we know anything?" when the engagement of those questions don't really yield any benefit to anyone where as the same effort dedicated to "how can we cure this disease" absolutely has.