No, I actually think philosophers have a kind of general-purpose expertise in thinking that makes it prima facie reasonable to include a philosopher on a policy team independently of their more specific topical or subdisciplinary expertise. (Obviously you *also* need domain-specific experts.)

The charge is that Byrne is misleading people because the HHS (implicitly) describes him as a "methodologist" instead of a "philosopher"? Not really sure why the verbiage matters, but it sounds like that's a complaint to direct at the HHS rather than at Byrne.

Thanks for bringing the worry to my attention.

Fair enough! I've updated the footnote to clarify: "I just offer these as representative examples of what I take to be a very common pattern of reasoning. No offense intended to these authors in particular; they’ve just written down what I hear lots of other academics saying!"

(I did include a footnote with a couple of examples of "no duty -> no good" inferences, just to verify that I'm not making up that pattern of reasoning. But I didn't intend the post to be read as "calling out" those *particular* authors. Perhaps I should make that clearer?)