I see from your Medium page that you responded to some of my older articles, which I missed because I can't possibly keep track of all the comments on all my articles.

Anyway, are you saying you haven't read this dialogue with Matthew? If so, I don't know how you can say it's "flawed." And flawed how, exactly? It would be best to quote what you think is flawed and to explain why that assessment is justified.

I don't say cognitive psychology is a pseudoscience.

I'm not in academia, although I did get some academic degrees. Does that make me a fake philosopher with no original ideas? Hardly. That criticism of yours is ad hominem, too, as is your next paragraph about the need for personal validation, etc.

I'm afraid that these personal attacks of yours are rather validations that your initial comment was indeed a rant.

My debate with Matthew on humanism speaks for itself. You're free to criticize it, if you like, but it would be best if you did so directly and constructively, without resorting to distractions.