Scientists will judge any new technology on what it enables them to do, or do better, in their work and how - because, in the end, that is how science works. If somebody suggests to me how to do things better, or to avoid pitfalls, it must be better in a way that is relevant to me and my colleagues.
I don’t think anyone is saying scientists *must* adopt the position of this paper. Philosophers aren’t coming down from atop their proverbial perches to tell the lowly pleb scientists how to do their work. It’s just their suggestions. Do with it what you will
I agree. I am just disagreeing, based on historical data, with the claim that philosophers of science have special insight or skills that will make scientists do science better.
I am more interested in philosophy of science and read more on it than (conservative estimate) 95% of my colleagues, and I just see no evidence that it puts them at any disadvantage as scientists relative to myself. Many are thoughtful and brilliant scientists, who excel at spotting problems.