The difference with a philosopher?
Only this: "doctrine", and in doctrine only this: the formulation of rules of thought and conduct.
• DOCTRINE, noun. fem.
• DOCTRINER, trans verb.
A.− Set of principles, of statements, erected or not in system, translating a certain conception of the universe, of human existence, of society, etc., and willingly accompanying, for the field envisaged, the formulation of models of thought, rules of conduct.
But also:
Ad hoc, clearly and publicly defined position of a school of thought or an individual on a special problem, generally delicate and subject to controversy; strong opinion on a specific point, interpretation, thesis.
This is what universities do after high schools and colleges, these schools of official indoctrination.
Indeed rules of thought (the object of philosophy) without leading to a mode of conduct it is useless.
Gandhi, quoted, enacted the doctrine of nonviolence by asking to put it into practice and this avoided rivers of blood in retaliation.
Pasteur, also quoted, dogmatized on vaccination hoping that it would avoid epidemics or certain dreadful deaths such as rabies. The intention was commendable, the result not up to its doctrine.
The system is not open, the system is not dynamic. The system is supervised by its high priest the ideologue and the henchmen of his chapel, there is no escape. Whoever challenges the slightest idea of the doctrine is in the best case that he has understood nothing, in the intermediate case that he will be delivered to public vindictiveness so that he becomes aware of his abnormality, or in the worst case he ends up at the gulag where he will be "explained" to him what he has to understand.
This is the great difference between a philosopher or an intellectual, and an ideologist.
It's funny this constancy to see only the negative side of things. You idealize "science" through a few scientists who dogmatize at all costs, but there you don't mind that everything is relative.