The article appears to provide no support for it's bold claim. Why is that? Why can't they provide an argument that shows that examining the fundamentals and rational consequences of an idea can actually evaluate whether an idea is 'good' or not? That seems like a valid strategy to me. Often good ideas are rooted in a fundamental shift in perspective on an admitted need. Yet this article makes the claim that this method of evaluating a good idea, and every single other possible method one could formulate, must be wrong.

And then they fail utterly to ever substantiate or defend that claim. They just presume the audience accepts it on blind faith. This is a common problem with arguments that invoke 'blind faith' in almost any capacity. Even Kierkegaard's famous 'Leap of Faith' interpretation of belief in God (the idea that because God is beyond human understanding, belief in it can only come through a 'leap' and not through a chain of reasoning) is underlaid with an unsupported presumption that there exist things which can be beyond human understanding, or that such an idea is even sensical itself. Yet that is never supported there either.