Oh yeah, the first paragraph is an absolute doozy: 'As I argued in part I, scientism—the view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge—is either self-re

Oh yeah, the first paragraph is an absolute doozy: 'As I argued in part I, scientism—the view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge—is either self-refuting or trivial. Moreover, consistently pursued, it leads to the “eliminative materialist” position that the human mind itself is a fiction—that there are no such things as thinking, perceiving, willing, desiring, and so forth. This position is not only incoherent, but undermines the very possibility of science itself—the very thing scientism claims to champion.' It makes absolutely no logical sense that consistently pursuing scientific thought would only ever describe the human mind as a fiction. The author is a bizarre fantasist who not only doesn't understand science, he doesn't understand science itself or is deliberately mis-representing science as some kind of philosophy or religion that purports to offer "truth". i.e. quoting again: 'Hypnotized by the unparalleled predictive and technological successes of modern science, contemporary intellectuals infer that scientism must be true' It's nonsense. Who are these contemporary intellectuals? Despite all these conservative think-tankers trying to conflate science with philosophy or religious pursuits, nobody expects science to deliver the truth, they expect it to deliver results. He can pray for some I guess.