Shows how dangerous it is that the narrative around thresholds/goals has changed such that they can be crossed with the promise of returning to them at some future point (a point made very urgently in Andreas Malm's Overshoot)

I fall on scientists side (in training) but find it confusing how interpretations can be improved without engaging in models/definitions (the stuff of philosophy). One context where I imagine it'd be least required is in cataloguing interpretations

Why is it that much of biology doesn't need philosophy of biology? (Including it's foundations?)

How do you see the state of biology and philosophy? Have we had a similar trajectory as described in the essay and we have landed in a place where there is a good balance?

What are some fields in evoeco that you would consider are not in a Normal science phase?