Perhaps ‘technically’ the main point is correct, but what are the implications? Students, and people in general, especially in the natural sciences are not supposed to be curious about the larger meaning and what you can actually use the results for? They can only create hypothesis, test, observe, conclude and then do that ad infinitum? Why should they not be allowed or even encouraged to wonder, ask questions (including to others) etc about the larger meaning of what they discovered? There’s a whole world between devising (lab?) experiments and measuring stuff on the one hand and philosophising on the other. It’s called the real world. It seems a very dangerous suggestion to say: scientists create (lab?) hypotheses and test them and should not think about the implications, which can only be determined by philosophers. And the rest can go home. This is of course a slightly radical framing but consistent with the article. And I understand that blogs are supposed to provoke, which means nuance is the enemy. But since we’re now post-blog, I am quite curious where nuance does make sense.
