How philosophy can lead us away from truth

It is usually assumed that philosophy is a search for truth, or in the (post-)(post-)-modern view where the word truth should not be uttered, that philosophy creates discourses and thereby shapes reality.
Philosophy has converged towards a subject consisting of arguments (or some kind of more or less specified manipulation of texts and meanings, as in deconstruction) backed by whatever authoritative world-view is prevalent at the moment, be it religion, science, marxism, enlightenment theory, or something else. The effect is that philosophical positions about which there is little room for arguing tend to be abandoned by contemporary philosophers. One can not make a living from finding an insight which is hard to connect with the basis for one's funding and position. This tendency has now in many cases turned into a profoundly materialistic world-view, reflected in many parts of the philosophical debate. The rejection of all possible scenarios which are not directly amenable to logical scrutiny, to political debate, or to scientific inquiry, is a choice made on pragmatical grounds. There is nothing necessary (or even plausible, given what we know from history) about the thesis that ideas which today cannot be thoroughly defended or criticized, are not true. It only illustrates how ingrained the view that we create "stories of reality" by arguments, has become. Indeed, it a realistic and plausible assumption that there are many aspects of reality which are simply too far removed from our daily politics, physical or biological sciences, or indeed Western philosophical discourses, to be efficiently approached and understood within those systems.
The Western idea that truth must be debatable, analyzable, formalizable, is certainly efficient in many, mostly practical, areas of human existence. At the same time, there is no ground whatsoever for assuming that this specific perspective encompasses all of reality. (If this is how one thinks all of reality is brought into being via various discourses, one can just as well withdraw into a solipsistic slumber, rather that reading this article.)
The methods and perspectives of philosophy have thus become biased towards those opinions on which many papers can be written and which allow for the inclusion of buzz words like cognitive science, complexity theory, or neuronal consciousness. Consequently, views which suggest another perspective are duly rejected, not because they have been falsified, but because they have become less popular and profitable. The mistake made is that the new ideas are not developed as a complement in addition to previous classical perspectives, but in order to give themselves greater power and credibility they overthrow anything in the "tradition" and put themselves on top. This practice is very far removed from the open-minded honest search for truth, and needless to say, it it very likely that this approach omits large and significant parts of reality.