I think the correct claim around this topic is that interpretation may reflect moral judgement, and consequently decisions about what to do in a world seen under a given interpretation, which does say something about the person doing the musing, and could be very useful to them. Conversely, knowledge about reality is useful to a person only to the extent it helps them with decision making. So insisting on divesting theories of interpretation is good methodology with both upsides and downsides, not a fundamental principle, which is I’m guessing what some people hear when the distinction between theories and interpretations is pointed out.
I think the correct claim around this topic is that interpretation may reflect moral judgement, and consequently decisions about what to do in a world seen under a given interpretation, which does say something about the person doing the musing, and could be very useful to them. Conversely, knowledge about reality is useful to a person only to the extent it helps them with decision making. So insisting on divesting theories of interpretation is good methodology with both upsides and downsides, not a fundamental principle, which is I’m guessing what some people hear when the distinction between theories and interpretations is pointed out.