Yes, I'm familiar with his theory. There are certainly different ways of looking at the world. It's just that the upside of the scientific one speaks for itself. I'm not an eliminativist or a scientismist, meaning that I don't think science gives us complete knowledge, and I think the emergent properties of consciousness and personhood are real and anomalous.
But even if you take a pragmatic view of science, as I do, the utility of scientific objectification is best explained by philosophical naturalism, not supernaturalism. This means the physicality throughout nature is impersonal, and religious or animistic personifications are gratuitously subjective.
On neo-Kantian grounds, I argue in my writings that all knowledge is partly subjective in so far as it increases our understanding, but not all subjective interpretations are equally warranted on pragmatic, aesthetic, or ethical grounds. For instance, the scientific departure from Aristotelian teleology wasn't arbitrary, but was based on improvements in critical thinking.
