This is so incredibly bad. The second part of the main thesis is never justified, just asserted. The majority of this is a bunch of unjustified assertions barely connected where almost all actual connections are fallacious. Then some of this is just a hacked up ideolect that redefines things like chefs and cooks with no respect for the empirical world or how chefs, cooks or others actually use those words or how any of them actually do things.

> Reasoning by first principles removes the biases, assumptions and conventions.

First principles are assumptions. smh. It would be hard to write a more philosophically naive and generally unconvincing article on this topic.