what Gene Callahan does
You'd need to spell out more precisely what he's doing that you think deserves criticism.
Interestingly I seem to have read quite a few of the "classics" that come up in that discussion on "what science does". Polanyi's Personal Knowledge, Feyerabend's Against Method, Lakatos' Proofs and Refutations, Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Not Popper however - I've read The Open Society but not his other works.
Given your stance on "explaining" those strike me as good examples of the kind of stuff you might want to have read because that would leave you in a better position to criticize what you're criticizing: less prone to misrepresenting it. (As for me, I'm now investing a lot of time and energy into this "Bayesian" stuff, which definitely is sort of a counterpoint to my prior leanings.)
You'd need to spell out more precisely what [Gene Callahan]'s doing that you think deserves criticism.
Exactly what I referred to in the previous paragraph.
it's [up to] those who are aware of the classics' insights to understand and present them where applicable.
Callahan is, supposedly, aware of these classics' insights. Did he present them where applicable? Show evidence he understands them? No. Every time he drops the name of a great author or a classic, he fails to put the argument in his own words, sketch it out, or show its applicability ...
This thread is for the discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts. If a discussion gets unwieldy, celebrate by turning it into a top-level post.
This thread brought to you by quantum immortality.