It's a prime example for why the scientist are not always good philosopher. But there's something that disturbs me even more: how can he decently wrote on a subject when he doesn't interact AT ALL with the litterature? I mean, all he said can be resumed in one phrase: "The PSR is false, because its defense is antiquated and we don't need it." Not only the latter doesn't imply the former, but it's also completly false.
Thoughts? Maybe philosophy should be mandatory to every scientific education.
For a lot of these types the problem is ignorance, as much as overt dishonesty. The problem isn't an intellectual failing but a moral one (this is even the case with a couple of philosophers of religion, who have even less excuse for such antics).
