I obviously meant that statement to mean what it meant, rather than what I meant in to mean. If you can't take time out of your busy schedule to infer the meaning of my statements, I don't know how we can ever have a serious discussion.
Consult with philosophers in regard to...what?
I don't see how this is a question. It ended with you obviously being distracted from making a statement, and accidentally replying with your keyboard instead of speaking aloud to whoever walked in the room.
Constructing your hypothesis cannot be achieved without the necessary information. How do you get the necessary information for your hypothesis without prior observation, information gathering and testing?
Obviously a mistyped rhetorical question (else should be written after how), not one designed to gather information. No need to further elaborate with more information from that post. I can tell what you meant, even though your statement means something different because you forgot a word or 2.
Seems unusual. Why would a scientist need to consult a philosopher in order to carry out his work? The only reason I can think of is in relation to ethical questions. Perhaps animal related tests, etc.
Can you describe what you were referring to?
Exactly- you are spot on. The rhetorical question above (Why would a scientist...?) is what I was referring to. The follow up question was obviously placed in the post in anticipation of this conversation, which indicates great foresight on your part. Kudos!
What you say doesn't appear to be related to philosophy. Why bring in a philosopher to check scientific data?
How is ''philosophy'' being defined?
2 more excellent rhetorical questions, I so enjoy the way you have used them to prove your point.
So I ask the question again: what precisely is the need for scientists to consult with philosophers in relation to scientific experiments and results?
Tying a rhetorical question to the work ask is a work of philosophical wonder, obviously showing the precise need for scientists to consult with philosophers in relation to experiments and results. Who else would be able to interpret whether questions are truly rhetorical or not?