The standard "book counter" would be to point out that the objection is a fallacious argumentum ad hominem. However, unless you are in a formal or quasi-formal debate situation or addressing an academic audience, Lumifer's suggested approach is preferable, IMO.

ETA: I wonder why this was downvoted; it seems like a non-controversial comment that is relevant to the topic.

From the OP:

The absence of an observation may be strong evidence of absence or very weak evidence of absence, depending on how likely the cause is to produce the observation.

So, yes, absence of evidence can convincingly disprove a theory in some cases (although, as ChristianKI points out, Bayesians typically do not assign probabilities of 0 or 1 to any theory).

Richard Dawkins' 1976 book The Selfish Gene contains, among other things, some interesting discussions about how many altruistic behaviors might have arisen through natural selection.

I spoke about the invention of the steam engine as a means for pumping water out of mines. The Greeks never tried to use it for that purpose.

True, but you and two other people pointed out that the Greeks had invented the steam engine as if that somehow invalidated something that I had said.

Most of thermodynamics developed after there were already commercial steam engines.

This is not really true. Scientific work in the area of thermodynamics had been done in the 17th century by Denis Papin, Otto von Guericke , Robert Boyle, Thomas Savery and others. Some of this work was directly applicable to steam engines.

I don't think that Thomas Newcomen had much scientific knowledge of thermodynamics.

I think it is likely that Newcomen was familiar with Savery's earlier work on steam engines, at a minimum. And, whereas you are focused on the invention (or reinvention, in Newcomen's case) of the steam engine, I think that the ongoing development of the steam engine is at least as relevant. The development of the steam engine continued well past then end of Newcomen's life - the late 18th century engines and the 19th century steam engines used on trains, ships and in industry were much improved over the versions produced by Newcomen - and many of these improvements came about from scientific knowledge in the areas of gas laws, thermodynamics, etc.

I think knowledge about metallurgy at the time wasn't mainly scientific but based on trades.

This is largely true, particularly in the 18th century. But as noted above, the steam engine continued to be developed and improved throughout the 19th century. Some of these improvements were possible by improved materials (metals), and by the latter half of the 19th century, metallurgy was becoming more scientific, particularly with regard to improvements in steel production.

19th century steel manufacturing also gave a big boost to the steam engine industry in an indirect manner - quality steel greatly improved the strength and longevity of railroad tracks and trestles, leading to increased use of rail and increased demands for more powerful and more efficient steam engines. Since the quote that started this conversation was about the "technical accomplishment of our civilization" and "the ingenuity of the inventions, the range and density of technical mediation, the multiplicity of artifactual interfaces in a global technoscientific economy", I think that it is useful to look at how various industries (such as the steel and railroad industry) affected the later development of the steam engine rather than focusing exclusively on its early commercialization by Newcomen.

The Greek had steam engines before the invention of the modern scientific method

Actually, you brought the invention of the steam engine into the conversation.

And, while the Greeks invented a rudimentary steam engine, the ancient Greek engine was not really of any practical use. Developing a commercially viable steam engine did not occur until much later. Developing a steam engine that could be used reliably, safely and efficiently for transportation, etc., required scientific knowledge of thermodynamics, behavior of gases, metallurgy, etc.

I do grant that the scientific method has important effect on the way our modern technology works

Which is what led to my question about why the author thinks that the Eastern mode of thought is superior to the Western mode of thought for "understanding the contribution knowledge makes to the technical accomplishment of our civilization". When I phrased the question, I did not mean it in an argumentative sense, I actually meant I am interested to hear his thoughts on the subject - which is one of the reasons I intend to read the book.

When I said these things "grew out of the Western intellectual tradition" I did not mean to suggest that the steam engine had been invented by an academic. In fact, neither the steam engine nor the automobile was invented in a vacuum; whether or not the inventors of these things (or the people who first successfully mass-produced them) had university degrees is not the issue. Developing steam engines, internal combustion engines, electric generators and motors, vacuum tubes and semiconductors, and many of the other things that have driven the technology boom over the past couple of hundred years required scientific knowledge, and the modern scientific method was a development of the Western analytical mindset.

The book sounds interesting. When I read your quote from the book, I initially misinterpreted it as a anti-philosophy comment of the sort one occasionally encounters but after reading the blurb for the book on Amazon, realized the quote was contrasting Eastern vs Western thought.

One thing I am curious about - if the Eastern mode of thought is really superior to the Western mode of thought for "understanding the contribution knowledge makes to the technical accomplishment of our civilization", how does the author explain the fact that the scientific method, the industrial revolution, and (to use his words), "the multiplicity of artifactual interfaces in a global technoscientific economy" grew out of the Western intellectual tradition?

However, I do think that there are interesting differences between the traditional Eastern way of thinking and the traditional Western way of thinking, and that each has its unique strengths. An interesting book on this topic is The Geography of Thought by Richard Nisbett; it points out the differences between Eastern and Western thought without really painting one as "better" than the other. Note that Nisbett's book is aimed at a general audience whereas I suspect that Allen's may be aimed at an academic audience.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about Allen's book once you've finished reading it. I'm putting it on my "to read" list, but I'm not sure when I'll get to it.

Nal vagrtre a terngre guna sbhe raqf jvgu gjb jura jevggra va onfr a zvahf gjb

That was the proof that I thought of as well.

I just now looked up Vanishing into Things on Amazon and it looks quite interesting. Have you read the book in its entirety? What are your thoughts about it?

How mainstream was the belief that Genesis is not literal?

Well, the three authors that I listed are among the most influential early doctors of the church, so their views are definitely mainstream (albeit not universally held).

You can't use that as your criteria for "ancient tradition" without making the whole concept of "ancient tradition" meaningless because now everything is one.

I don't know about that. I listed three very influential early Christian theologians who took much of Genesis to be non literal.

how exactly do you figure out which tradition is the "real" one

Your point that there are divergent views on the matter of how literally to take Genesis is certainly true and not in dispute. I alluded to that fact in my post when I said:

it is certainly the case that some believers traditionally interpreted Genesis literally (and some still do)

However, I don't see how that conflicts with my point that one can interpret the serpent story metaphorically without breaking with early mainstream Christian traditions. Moreover, you wrote:

For that matter, since religion is supposed to provide eternal truth, the idea of having a minority tradition in sometinng seems problematic--how exactly do you figure out which tradition is the "real" one...?

I don't see how the fact that there are divergent interpretations of some scriptural stories is particularly surprising or problematic, unless you are trying judge ancient religious texts against the stylistic standards of modern historical or scientific writing (which presumably most people would not recommend doing).