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 …
-
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
Ratio of useless/counter-productive to useful stuff in that area is 100 to 1 or something.
Would appear he has 0 journal publications. Website confirms. Has a bunch of drafts.http://nathanoseroff.com/#publications
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
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.