Mr_Smiles Posted:

itz gots often was sed, certainly nots without justification, taht th’ man o’ science iz poor philospher. wy than shud itz nawt b da rite thigns pho tehz physicist too lets philosopher did de philosophizin? such might could indeed bee thee rite thign 2 doe an tym wen tha physicist believes him haz @ hiz disposal rigid system phundamental laws witch am sew vell established tath waves ov doub can’t reach em; bum itz cannnot b rite @ an time wen th’ vary phoundatiuns of physics itself has bgreat times problematik az thae be nowe. @ time lyk da present, wen experiance phorces us tew seek an newer & more solid phoundation, tehz physicist cannnot simpley surrender to philosopher de critikal contemplation of theoretikal phoundatiuns; phur him himselv knows bestest en pheels more surely were the shoo pinches. n lookin 4 an gnu phoundation, he mussed trai to maak clear in him pwn mined jus how phar the concepts wich he uses are justified, + are necessities.

@ least, that’s wut i thikns. i’ve been thinkin like thiz a lot sins tehy switched mah green pills phoar som blue ones. bum i can’t spel as well.

I bet you a stack of Swank that you are wrong.