ludimagister asked: I was going metaphorical at it, you didn't need to check the facts. My point is that phi-of-sci provides a meta-reflective level from which one can sensibly reason about science--as you yourself did by bringing up Kuhn. And, that kind of reasoning can be fed back to the world of science--as in Popper's criticism of Freud's paradigm. Not to mention Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Bohr, and other great scientists' heavy engagement with phi-of-sci. It is not as irrelevant as you made it sound.
I agree ludimagister, and I was not pretending to make Philosophy of Science as an irrelevant issue, it is not! Just I point at they are different disciplines, mutually interacting, but that they are indeed different. I think also that is the sense of the Feynman’s argument, or at least that’s my interpretation.
Scienceisbeauty’s point is valid. I’ve read articles written by creationists who have propped their bogus theories on the work of “scientists,” who had PhDs in Phi-of-Sci rather than Biology, Chemistry, or Physics, etc. The first hand claims of experts in their discrete fields should be the basis of scientific theories, not the easily discredited hypotheses of religious apologists posing as scientists.