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.
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.
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.
This is a direct response to another post on lobsters.
Which got a -1 offtopic :/