Jesus Christ this article is total trash. Everything I read about science from a philosophers perspective just totally misses the point. And why are the ideas being discussed so confused? Aren't philosophers supposed to be clear thinkers?

Within the first couple of paragraphs we see the author preparing to critique Popper's falsifiability thesis. But in the first Einstein example he equates an error in the formulation with an undue credit given to falsifiability.... what? That Einstein's ideas were testable should have been the topic, not whether there were errors or whether the experiment disproved the hypothesis! Flaws in the scientific process don't make the effort unscientific.

Philosophers seem to have a fetish with talking about science as if 1 experiment becomes the authoritative answer on a given topic. Science is a process, it's a cycle of refinement. Every conclusion is constantly reevaluated and open to revision. Deeper hypotheses further test the conclusions they are based on. Similarly, falsifiability is not the end-all-be-all of what defines science. Clearly it is central to modern efforts, but there is no list of divine truths in the universe that describe what is and isn't valid science; it's pragmatic.

There are too many things wrong to correct coherently on my phone. Aren't these professors embarrassed when the publish something like this? Does no one tell them how bad their work is? Are these philosophers working in a philosophy bubble? It's mind boggling...