Civilization, in every generation, must be defended from barbarians.
The barbarians outside the gate, the barbarians inside the gate, and the barbarian in the mirror...
While he makes some good points along the way, in the end he fails. In the short term, what he's advocating is some form of pietism. In the slightly longer term, where he's going (and, indeed, it is already an implicit premise of his argument) is the assertion that we can know nothing.
The his exemplar "experts on evidence" cannot agree on what "evidence" is isn't due to any alleged subjective nature of evidence, but that there are more ways to be wrong than right.
Post a Comment