so a person could easily be a vegetarian for a day, then eat meat, then call themself a vegetarian again; just as a meat eater can not eat meat for 5 years but still not consider them self a vegetarian.

really its a moral and mental state of mind if anything.

One pattern I noticed is that the more time that passed, the more inaccurate my answers became.

I spent much of my misguided youth playing AD&D and similar games and well recall the very loud (but small in number) folks who warned about the dangers of the game. Tom Hanks even acted in an anti-gaming TV movie, Mazes & Monsters.

You should copyright your game idea-it would make a fortunes…

Perhaps the answer is that a sizeable number of Pakistanis backed the man who opposed the terrorists who daily fire their drones at innocent Pakistani civilians, in order to kill the odd ‘terrorist’? Using missiles against unarmoured civilians?

https://engineering.purdue.edu/~ece511/OnLineLabs/ClassicalMethods/MethodOfAdjustment/adjustments.html

For what it’s worth, it is not quite right that Meyerson never worked on quantum physics. His final work was titled “Réel et déterminisme dans la physique quantique” (Reality and determinism in quantum physics).

There are plenty of philosophers of science who do philosophy in a readable way. I’ve mentioned some already. e.g., Phillip Kitcher is quite readable.

There are issues with the profession, but let’s not overstate them. The Sokal Affair primarily spoke against a certain kind of literary and cultural theorist. Some philosophers of science were implicated in the “science wars” of the 90s, but they were not implicated by Sokal. There is interesting stuff in the philosophy of science, and good people working in it. The problem, as always, is with the minority who are not so good.

Meyerson studied chemistry under Wilhelm Bunsen (of the burner fame). So he had a science background. He wrote at a time when a lot of very interesting things were happening – the beginning of what is known as Modern Physics, and the ideas of Freud etc. His thing was to take the new discoveries in science and see if they had an application in philosophy.

His writings were popular in France in the early 20th century. Significantly influential on people like Lacan.

Moral Relativism, is Meyerson’s problem child. It’s a reasonably exact application of Einstein’s theory of special/general relativity to morality. And the peculiar thing, some rockstar contemporary people working in philosophy with no background in science (or no real curiosity for the subject), when they give a history or discuss moral relativism they make no mention of Meyerson, but they do use Einstein’s words (no frame of reference being privileged). So somehow Meyerson has come to them invisibly. An interesting thing is if you stick closer to Einstein, the moral relativity that emerges is far different from the contemporary accepted awfulness – which is maybe a Chinese whispers version, but ya have to know your Einstein for that, dontcha.

I believe Meyerson died before he had an opportunity to think and write on quantum physics.

Why we don’t have contemporary Meyersons, and instead we have the Sokal affair, etc, is another question.