This is the exact mindset that when used at the level of the grant awarding body causes incremental research to prevail while pushing out outsider thoughts.

Things requiring unorthodox (but not incorrect) combinations of knowledge are met with the kind of skepticism that forgets to be skeptical of its own skepticism.

Things on longer horizons than the short term, corporatized ROI of our research institutions—who are themselves supposed to be less beholden to quick wins at the expense of knowledge generation—leads to a chilling effect on trying anything revolutionary at all.

The outcome is echo chambers, local maxima/minima in research, and promising avenues of research that are underfunded simply because they aren’t popular. Inevitably it also leads to the kind of institutional stagnation that results in p-hacking, and so on.

Philosophy doesn't have any ROI. It lives off critical examination of ideas, which is why research on it has to be done in a vibrant community. In a nutshell, it needs a research topic to be popular enough to stir up some criticisms of it and have enough experts who can evaluate it. Otherwise, that research program is doomed. Without critical evaluation you cannot have research. That requires enough of a critical threshold of people working on the topic and a community.

Generally, science lives off skepticism. Skepticism requires a decent number of skeptics who try to show that you're wrong. That requires your research to be sufficiently popular for others. Without that control, it becomes crackpotery very fast. You've got it the wrong way 'round.