Hermes,

> In this context, the assumption is not false, but incomplete. <

You just be using a very different dictionary than mine. The assumption that the earth is flat is “incomplete”? What would it take to complete it? Perhaps rejecting the idea altogether and replacing it with the notion that the Earth is a spheroid?

> When you discuss biochemistry or neuroscience, most statements are incomplete. <

And a lot more will turn out to be untrue. That’s perfectly clear from even a cursory look at the history of science.

> Epigenetics make Lamarckism work in a few cases <

No, it doesn’t. I actually work on epigenetics, I know what I’m talking about.

> I am frustrated by the disconnect between “philosophy of science” and the way scientists do science in real life <

That disconnect is in your mind only, and I wager the result of your own prejudice against philosophy in general, of which both philosophy of science and ancient ethics are specific examples.

There are lots of papers co-published by scientists and philosophers, and philosophy of science is not in the business of answering scientific questions anyway. Just like history of science, or sociology of science, aren’t.

> I am confronted by discussions about epistemology quite often when I review research grants for the NIH. References to Carl Popper or Thomas Kuhn in a Study Section are met with grunts of skepticism. Writing “paradigm shift” in a grant is likely to lower your score. <

That’s an unfortunate outcome of your own limitations. Luckily, not all scientists are like you in this respect.

> Philosophers do not understand the scientific method at all. The best thing to do is to lock philosophers out of our labs <

That is by far the most ignorant and arrogant statement you’ve made so far.