ResearchGate
< Back

February 2019

Brad Jesness has added an update

Feb 26,2019

No analytic philosophers needed (for science, on this Earth)

It is myself, a science person IN A SCIENCE AREA [(seeking to be no philosopher, though likely MUST be considered one, for 'them' to try to vainly defend the self-interests OF philosophy/philosophers)] who may have done all conceivable major analysis on the faults of general Psychology theories *. Analytic ** philosophers should prove me incorrect, acknowledge me, try to elaborate upon me (or more clearly explain), significantly &quot;tweak&quot; me, OR admit NO ONE OUTSIDE A SCIENCE IS likely NEEDED nor much active (and their criticisms are minor, trivial, or relatively worthless AND/OR LIKELY UNNECESSARY) &lt;-- YET another way to evaluate the &quot;relationship&quot; between philosophy and science. * FOOTNOTE: For just a taste of my evaluations, see: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_many_most_interdisciplinary_studies_BAD_science ** FOOTNOTE: &quot;analytical&quot; -- if you want to continue the strange tendency to add an &quot;al&quot; to lots of modifier words (adjectives) where it is not needed, if not just plain incorrect (hey: those dumb enough to do this could possibly be good for WHAT??) Have a good day.