... when it comes to criticizing a view that claims to be rational through & through - a view supposedly without alternatives - that, in reality, is riddled with inconsistencies, metaphysical confusion & irrational hubris.
https://www.johannesjaeger.eu/blog/the-thing-about-epistemic-humility
I attack this view with arguments. I engage with what scientists & engineers publicly say they do, taking them seriously, indeed.
So, once again, tell me: what is your point? And: read my paper, perhaps, before criticizing it? Thanks.