So the author argues for some kind of long in the tooth peculiar positivism? Had he studied just some 20th century philosophy and its problems (from positivism to analytic philosophy to post-analytic), he wouldn't make such tiresome arguments.
The thing I find odd is that I've followed Luke for some years and he's remarkably well read on these topics and assuredly know of the complications with this stance. I find his Scientific Narrative argument (Science has solved other problems, why should X be the last to fall?) problematic but he seems to lean heavily on it.
