You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
The tautology has sidetracked many good minds. But selection+heredity = adaptation. Logically it must be, and there are no other alternative explanations for bio-complexity. If that conflicts with the philosophy of science, it is the philosophy that is in error. cc:@jason_pontinhttps://twitter.com/FriedrichHayek/status/1084785697733505030 …
I've never found a single idea from philosophy of science or philosophy of biology that has proven useful to working biologists or other evolutionary scientists. FWIW.
'Falsification' is a vital concept, no? Presently, though, the field appears to have lost its way. It seems to have forgotten the point of the exercise. But in fairness, most fields seem to have lost their way, and I'm not sure philosophy of science is any worse than the rest.
Falsification is a useful idea, but is there any evidence to suggest that its introduction materially changed how science is done? Not that it's a good or bad thing that science wouldn't respond to philosophical charges, I'm just not aware of a tendency to do so.
Reminds me of Feynman: "The philosophy of science is as good to a scientist as ornithology is to a bird."
I don’t see any reason to distinguish between the work of eg David Hull & any other biologist — Hull simply works on harder problems & thinks more carefully about the more abstract conceptual issues. Hull edited a biological journal & served as president of a scientific society.
Is Michael Ghiselin a biologist or philosopher? Is Ernst Mayr a philosopher or a biologist — who cares? Both did foundational conceptual work involving the interaction of “biology” and “philosophy” and there is no untangling the complexity.
Do you think that is because of the traditional focus on reductionism?
Not sure what is claimed to be a tautology is one to be honest, also while something that is true by definition is not "useless" it’s not particularly useful either. 
How about "Anything Goes"?
I can think of a number of mistakes, like the reasoning behind Einstein’s cosmological constant that could have been avoided if scientists understood philosophy. A more consequential example is Dewey’s theories of education, which we are still paying for.https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/1084927383109619712?s=21 …
Popper. Goodnight.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
