Come on, Luke has a series of posts taking a shit on the entire discipline of philosophy. Luke is not an expert on philosophy. EY says he isn't happy with do(.) based causality while getting basic terminology in the field wrong, etc. EY is not an expert on causal inference. If you disagree with Larry Wasserman on a subject in stats, chances are it is you who is confused. etc. etc. Communication and scholarship norms here are just awful.

If you want to see how academic disagreements ought to play out, stroll on over to Scott's blog.

edit: To respond to the grandparent: I think the answer is adopting mainstream academic norms.