Horgan disagrees with adherents of scientism not on their epistemology but on some of their claims. That’s why, apart from a quick mention of falsifiability, he

Horgan disagrees with adherents of scientism not on their epistemology but on some of their claims. That’s why, apart from a quick mention of falsifiability, he mostly simply negates what, e.g., Dawkins says—on cancer, or genetics, or multiverse theory. Now I happen to think that he might be right, and that on most of these questions there is a fact of the matter amenable to investigation, but this is really quite a lazy approach; it’d be ambitious to properly address even one of these in a discussion of this length.