All these points you make are important to this, or any such, discussion. That said, you seem to stop short of some potential bottom lines:

1. Tyson is naive. As you said, he clearly doesn’t know what philosophy Is. Even if we let go of all the instances you and Tyson mention (e.g., "philosophy of science"), the core of philosophy is still left, and Tyson has not said anything I’ve heard, or you called out, to suggests he has any idea that this core exists or has any idea that (some) philosophers are better educated, etc, than many scientists.

2. The core of philosophy is questions such as "what is knowledge?" Tyson assumes this question has been definitively answered, even though other great scientists and philosophers would stop definitively stop short of that, e.g., Popper (who you refer to in this context) and Quine (saliently in his natualism). As a consequence, I’d argue neither Tyson nor many other scientists definitely know what knowledge is (as follows).

They think they do, apparently. But they swim in an ocean of "knowledge" that they largely agree about it. Because there are so many instances of "knowledge" they think they can compare any proposed knowledge to accepted knowledge, and decide whether it’s knowledge or not. They can’t *define* knowledge the way it seems they can define a triangle. I’d argue this is also an important issue. And given the way culture and the world are going, it might be as important as science itself, relative to our quality of life, if not our survival.