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.
I couldn't agree more. Mainstream academia is set of rationality skills and a very case hardened one. Adding something extra, like cognitive science might be good, but LW omits a lot of the academic virtues -- not blowing off about things you don't know, making an attempt to answer objections, modesty, etc.
PS: Tenure is a great rationality-promoting institution because...left as an exercise to the reader.
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, even in Discussion, it goes here.