The claim conflates 'different frameworks' with 'inference-blocking incommensurability'—differences can be mapped and negotiated without declaring all cross-tradition work unsound.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Conflates(in argumentation and logic): Treats two different things as if they're the same thing, or mixes them up in a way that causes confusion.
Cross-tradition work(as used in comparative philosophy and philosophy of science): Scholarship or thinking that tries to connect, compare, or combine ideas from different philosophical, cultural, or intellectual traditions.
Frameworks(rationalist and empiricist systems of thought): A system of basic ideas or assumptions that philosophers use to organize and explain how the world works—like a conceptual toolkit.
Incommensurability(Decision theory / rational choice theory): A relation between two options A and B such that neither A is at least as good as B nor B is at least as good as A, under the standard interpretation of the weak preference relation

Based on where you are in your exploration