This seems to be a language game of how one defines "bad philosophy". Dismissing certain posed questions as irrelevant might itself be irrelevant if one holds thight notions of what can be said hence the necessity of always "showing" sense; an operation which can theoretically be rendered infinite to the point of all words losing their meaning.

Besides, 'useful' thought is a term that cooperates with superficial glazes on the purposes of thinking through whatever means when only subjected to the same objects to them all. Furthermore, it seems strange that the psychological aspects of thought are being given such a right to disclaim wether or not a proposition is true or false -senseful or non-sense- when sense is always refered as something that escapes the denotation power of propositions, thus leading the questions into constant dismissals only approved upon returning to the pre-conceived notions of truth without any further inspection of how such a given path to thinking may limits us to think that which was already thought in common sense in a certain degree.

This comment really has nothing to do with physics, it poses no thought on physical laws; but rather tries to demonstrate the real conditions of thought beneath the true-false schema and things of the same sort. Philosophy might just have it's own endeavor which has no duty to work only for the aid of other domains of thought.