1. 3
  1.  

  2. 3

    I don’t find this argument very convincing.

    It seems that the author’s primary complaint is that no alternative suggestion is provided. I don’t think that that’s relevant at all.

    Secondarily,

    ways that involve the three areas of ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology—he gives not a single example of a question that those disciplines have answered.

    Again, that’s not the point of this article, which is to critique scientism.

    1. 3

      This harkens to the idea that one cannot complain unless they have a solution. I think it was good that Hughes did not provide a solution. If he did, this author would have been unable to restrain himself from focusing on the solution instead of addressing the criticisms Hughes has about scientism.

    2. 2

      This is a direct response to another post on lobsters.

      1. 1

        Which got a -1 offtopic :/