Not eating delicious food to OwN tHe LiBs

'Local people don't want these hotels in their towns, in their place ... I'm completely at one with them on that' is surely saying more than that Starmer 'doesn't want hotels housing asylum seekers'. 'Local people' aren't against this policy because its inhumane to asylum seekers ...

Elon Musk is a radicalised extremist openly championing the most racist faction who would deport the Foreign Secretary, the Leader of the Opposition, the Justice Secretary and the last Prime Minister

The govt silence about such a level of extremism is craven: infinite tolerance of racial hatred

I've now lived in Scotland (Glasgow) for nearly four years, and May is the most dependably (implausibly, even) sunny and dry month in Glasgow, while summer itself is extremely hit-and-miss. Edinburgh seems to be sunnier and drier than Glasgow but I think all of us had about one day of summer last yr

... some published medical research. And obviously there are a lot of academic biostatisticians who do a lot of important work on that. From my inexpert perspective of someone who's studied a bunch of phil., and is currently studying mathematical statistics, I think phil. could add something here.

... (which are not the same as 'faulty syllogisms'), or purporting to 'prove' something that we actually haven't. Again, detecting this is not a skill unique to philosophers; I think here of how poor the connection between scientific hypothesis and statistical evidence can be in ...

Definitely, domain-specific knowledge is crucial; that's why I think it's in collaboration *with* scientists that philosophers can be most of use. Re your question, I think you overestimate humans in general! All of us are susceptible to believing/constructing flawed arguments ...

Again, not arguing that scientists *can't* do this. But when you are specifically trained in doing something, and you do it day in and day out, you do develop some expertise.

/ in which they can be well-trained that provide value. Eg finding holes in the logic of an argument (spotting hidden premises, equivocations etc). Or exploring the different possible meanings of a scientific concept (I think collaborative work in the foundations of physics is an example of this).

You very understandably come at this from the perspective of 'if philosophy can't find the one right answer, what use is philosophy'? But we're looking at different scales here. It's not a question of finding the 'right' answer to a big philosophical question; there are smaller tasks to which ...

it is understandable that scientists can be incredulous about philosophical involvement. For one, some attempts at applied philosophy of science by philosophers are truly dire.

Not conviction that it's self-evident. There have been, and continue to be, philosophers and scientists actively collaborating on projects. I want to make clear, though, that I don't think you'd want constant philosophical involvement in all parts/areas of scientific research. Also, ...

...a philosopher has successfully clarified something if someone personally finds the attempted clarification clarifying! I would deny that no philosopher has ever clarified anything; and I also wouldn't claim that every philosophers' attempt is successful.

Re your link, you will probably not be surprised to hear that other philosophers take different views on the question of whether there is progress in philosophy, and if so what form it takes (spoiler alert: not the form that progress in science takes). But it seems quite easy to say that...

I'm not sure what 'evidence' you're referring to?

I would agree that 'applied philosophy of science' can be done by scientists. The point here is definitely not to denigrate scientists as 'thoughtless', but to argue that sometimes the specific tool-set in which philosophers are trained can be, and has been, relevant to scientific practice.