If you don't want anything to crumble, don't chisel. But if one refuses to ever chisel then one will never give any form. Seems like a good way to do nothing.
We don't need to appeal to things we don't understand to make a case for the points we want to make. If quantum mechanics or relativity (both introduced in freshman science classes) required completely abandoning objective reality, I think we would have been teaching this by now.
These particular things are indeed counterintuitive. But what parts of quantum mechanics are "non-linear"? What does "non-linearity" have to with abandoning the notion of objective reality? These points were certainly not made clear in "Transgressing the Boundaries".
Please see my disclaimer, and my response to @Amalie Muller (who may or may not be playing Devil's Advocate). I did not divulge the circumstances for publication so that people give their honest opinions of the subject matter. I doubted that people would engage in debate if they knew the circumstances.
Nevertheless, I did not expect someone living in 2014, when we are 3D printing organs, making computer chips with 10s of billions of transistors, and have found evidence of the Higgs Boson, to have a particularly good response to an article invoking the bogey man of "non-linearity" as a work of scholarship.
Again, my intention was never to embarrass anyone. This was meant as a test example of how to handle a situation where people are making ridiculous claims.