One commenter saw the long second sentence and assumed that the author had messed up somehow, instead of clocking the heads-up that this is piece is going to be a bit unusual and demanding. We're slowly getting used to how LLMs keep every sentence short enough to digest without much effort.

An LLM could never write this, as others here have pointed out, at least not without some very involved, nonstandard prompting. I think it's going to be important for our brains to keep reading stuff like this that is structurally unique. It almost reads like a miniature Benjamin Labutut story.

And still so

The scientific method stands alone as the singular technology produced by humanity that has never failed to produce a successful outcome

The Scientific rigor described in the Novum is the singular north star that can cover literally every possible question humanity has, should we be bold enough to actually insist on rigor and not succumb to “rationalism” or some other dualist nonsense

It is interesting that many of the comments critique it for being meandering, lacking in utility. I think the author is talented enough to write it that way intentionally. Its oblique direction and far flung references help make the point. The reactions against this style made the argument more compelling.

> that same positivism was leading less to liberation than to disenchantment, smashing the sacred icons and reducing the world to what can be instrumentalized, commodified, and calculated

(Ok ok ... the real quote is actually: "The Best Way to Predict the Future is to Invent It", and I actually think he also had that quote from someone else, earlier, but I forgot the name.)