Driving Science

I was recently told that it should be seen as offensive to call certain fields an "armchair science" as it gives the suggestion that one field is therefore better than another. My contention is namely with Philosophy. I consider it to be an armchair science. To me Philosophy in its manner of thinking can be a contribution to science as a whole, but it doesn't take the extra leap to see if these ideas are tangible, possible, or real. I understand that in some cases, testing these questions are, as of yet, impossible, but consider it in this manner:

Instead of calling Philosophy an armchair science, how about just saying it's in the passenger seat. By laying out possible game plans, it can navigate science's ability in various constructive directions as to be considered useful. However, if there were to be no navigator, science, in the driver's seat, could still progress, just possibly without a purposeful orientation. Philosophy may support and direct the driver, but without science itself, all philosophy can do is think of ways to navigate the science, but by not being behind the wheel, it will never truly know if the suggested routes were actually correct.

So one field isn't necessarily better than the other, as one supports the other for an overall successful journey, but without the ability to actually get on the road and test out these theories, Philosophy can only imagine what lies on the road ahead, even if it may have figured out the best route to get there.