Last week I tried to explain how philosophy of science can be useful for scientists. Now you've reminded everyone how useless it can be.
While you're throwing out irrelevant jargon, @hbdchick is out-philosophizing you by using basic logic and common sense.https://twitter.com/nathanoseroff/status/1026100540713967616 …
I feel vindicated. 
Ratio of useless/counter-productive to useful stuff in that area is 100 to 1 or something.
-
-
Would be interesting to see an attempt at estimating what the % is. Nathan might have to wait until he has tenure before tackling it though.
-
Most philosophy of science is worthless, but the same can be said for most work in virtually all academic fields. In any case
@nathanoseroff isn't representative of phil sci. His philosobabble would never get past peer review, as you can see from his CV: http://nathanoseroff.com/files/cv.pdf - 13 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.