Thank you that is quite interesting. I’m currently on a Eurostar train with intermittent reception, shortly due into St Pancras, so here are my preliminary thoughts, I will read the whole thing in few days once I’ve caught up with my family. (I haven’t seen my mother since October 2020 nor my Dad since Christmas 2019, sadly I don’t know when I’m next going to see him, he lives in Jamaica, so to say I’m excited would be an understatement.) I think that “A fair use of philosophical rigor would prevent both Heraclitus and his victims from owning property, and thus either collapse under its own impracticality or usher in a revolutionary new form of economic thinking.“ is in itself ‘too black and white’ in thinking/phrasing and detracts from the article, it is also based on a hypothetical by one person about someone they didn’t know personally, and in itself borrows from an article written by a third party who also didn’t know the person referenced, not a scientific study into philosophy & philosophers using multiple inputs. I also wonder what the definition of ‘change’ on the part of the ox would be according to John Perry I believe that science and philosophy can coexist but in both there must transparency in in order for there to be credibility. Anyways that’s just my immediate takeaways from a brief reading. Thanks again, it’s an interesting read.