Abstract
The article is a response to Matoušek's mistreatment of my previous article. I highlight his key misinterpretations of my text and the most striking cases of logical incoherence.
Three issues are elaborated upon: (i) the problems with combining epistemological positions, (ii) the role of methodological inspiration, and (iii) the significance of theory testing for the health of the discipline. The main conclusion is that Matoušek's alternative would be far more exclusive than it pretends to be.
In fact, seen from the perspective of the discipline as a whole, my conflictual multi-polar alternative is much more benevolent than the so-called inclusive alternative.