– How are “parasitic ideas” and “suicidal empathy” operationalized and measured? The current definitions are circular: an idea is parasitic because it destroys truth-seeking, and its destruction of truth-seeking is inferred from its being parasitic. What independent, falsifiable criteria distinguish a parasitic idea from a merely false, unpopular, or morally repugnant one?
– What causal evidence links political imbalance in academia to the alleged epistemic failures? The Democrat:Republican ratios are descriptive, US-specific, and discipline-variable. They do not show that leftist bias causes false research, suppresses replication, or produces the specific policy conclusions you denounce. What longitudinal or experimental evidence supports that causal claim?
– Is the neuro-parasitological framework literal or analogical? If literal, where is the neural or parasitological evidence that ideologies “hijack” human reasoning? If analogical, what novel, testable predictions does it generate beyond redescribing disagreeable beliefs as “zombified” or “infected”?
– How does the evolutionary lens handle non-reducible social phenomena? You assert that social sciences decoupled from biology “can never fully and accurately explain human phenomena,” but institutions, language, law, history, and power are not obviously reducible to evolutionary psychology. How would the proposed meta-theory explain these without explanatory imperialism?
