@tg9541 @bookstodon @philosophy
yes, agree in a way. but do not see a win in playing off those two against each other, as later (after their common work PM) their work developed rather independently in more or less complementary areas, sometimes overlapping in #PhilSci topics.
E.g., if one focusses in #philosophy first of all on questions of #ontology (of science), ANW's process ontology will be much more impressive than the duplicating entities of logical constructs in say 'logical atomism' (which imop is a late and needless sin of BR).
If, on the other hand, the main focus is #logic and logic related
#epistemology and/or #PhilMath, there is roughly anything deeper and more worth considering than say the theory of incomplete symbols; and perhaps no more careful and penetrating study than the ramified theory of types as developed from the circulus vitiosus argument, even when this theory was abandoned in the sequel for independent reasons.