[nathias]

I would argue his article was valid despite his intentions, philosophy does not concern itself with the scientifically correct opinion but explores ideas and their consequences and connections. So he poses a nonsense scientific thesis and explores it, this is the majority case of all past philosophy because scientific theses don't age well, but philosophical theses turn out to be less dependent on science, and a few abstractions removed from it.

[Maken]

The point here was not if philosophy is scientifically correct, but if the journal editors could tell apart philosophy from purposely empty babble. This was not an attack on philosophy but on the journal editorial team.

[nathias]

but it isn't empty babble, if you read it in good faith (as you should any philosophical text)