quote retweet this with your most controversial philosophical opinion

— Rebecca Buxton (@RebeccaBuxton) November 24, 2019

First one:

Even philosophical systems that do not map to any scientific, empirical “proven” facts or theories can have value as they often do map to primitives or intuitions directly that do have value, and thus are useful because they express those ideas in a way that is better and/or easier to understand than what jibes 100% with science.

Second one:

Statistics doesn’t just require philosophy in its various manifestations (Bayesian, quantum, frequentist, etc.) but is itself a philosophy masquerading as a science, with practitioners who often have a poor understanding of philosophy and science.