It's remarkable how the science-talkers here adopt (and preach) positions on the philosophy of science which are taken (often without them knowing it) from A.J. Ayer, Bertrand Russell, John Dewey, or, in this case, David Hume. The FR science-talkers insist that their philosophical opinions on science are not philosophical formulations at all but science itself, and that's that. Of course there is no reason at all why we should agree with or even entertain the philosophy of Dewey, Hume, Ayer, Russell, Popper, etc.
Humpday drivel