Problem over at CEMB is we have philosophy students who think they are able to opine on science. They're very clever with words, and are under the impression that this means something in any field they care to take on.
i think this statement is a bit out of place, as it's the obscure and sometimes alien nature of mathematical language used in science that causes these sorts of misunderstandings that make people think "osnap dis is contradiktion inn SCIENCES", and this article is a great example of that.
though i'm not entirely sure tbh what 'philosophy students who think they are able to opine on science' means, or whether it's exclusive to what you consider 'philosophy students'. shit, i would extend that statement to the lay person, as discussing things that are essentially inferences from mathematical models is pretty damn difficult for anybody without a technical understanding of the subject. i mean i'm not claiming to have an intricate knowledge of physics(i'm a 1st year math undergrad ffs) but i think you're being a bit hard on 'philosophy students'.
i would insert a rant about dumb people who for some reason think philosophy is just wishy washy rubbish and SCIENCE IS ALL WE NEED but i really can't be bothered right now and that's probably not what you're talking about