I took one class in the philosophy of science in college, and feel qualified to smugly dismiss the article. The article makes the point that knowing what somet

I took one class in the philosophy of science in college, and feel qualified to smugly dismiss the article. The article makes the point that knowing what something is and defining it are different. He then repeats that claim about 55 times, and says nothing else about science at all, certainly nothing about attempting to define the scientific method. (I don't really want to spend time arguing about Popper or Lakatos here. But that's not relevant to the content of the article at all.)