I disagree that scientific work comes off as a loud declaration that are other methods of finding the truth. Hughes’ article does not cite any research problems, theories, or statements that these alternative methods have solved. From this point of view, it becomes ironic to see Hughes’ argument critically its method of determining whether scientism is a viable method of discovering the truth about any phenomena. I do think that critiquing methods of research such as the behavioral environment is healthy for the entire field and all associated sciences. However, arguing intensely against the findings these methods yielded without providing alternatives simply enables nonscientific methods of research.I further disagree that scientism is hypocritical of its methods of research and discovery. History and academia are full of revolutions and paradigm shifts attributed to science. Surely Hughes is sending out an alert about recent trends in scientific methods of research that have yielded unhelpful findings (Hughes). Even if a number of researchers make overstated claims in their respective fields, scientism will progress as usual solving one problem after the other. Even when science does not solve a question or phenomena, it admits to its complexity and offers possible theories or research methods.Martin’s critique is brief but holistic enough to persuade me to agree with his key points. I think the source of motivation in Martin’s critique is the tension brought about by specialization in nearly all professions. I know there are many issues concerning the expertise that many readers of Martin’s critique would concur that professionals today are so lost in their lines of work that they are not in touch with good judgment anymore. A good example is a professional economist whose commitment to his or her field often intertwines with his or her perception of the world.