Even stone-cold sober I am wont to speak loosely; throw in some wine and Jaeger and there’s no telling what might come out of my mouth. Especially because the final show is missing bits of the conversation that got cut in the editing, I wanted to make it clear that, as a humanities scholar, I am very much aware that humanities scholars care about evidence and, generally speaking, "getting it right." My point on this front is that many sectors of the humanities have embraced a strongly epistemologically relativistic theoretical stance. This makes it unclear what standards could be used to adjudicate competing claims, and also makes humanities scholars overly skeptical of empirical claims coming out of the sciences. There is also a widespread suspicion of "scientism" that is much stronger than is justified, for a variety of reasons that I lay out in a Jaeger-free manner in Slingerland 2008 (What Science Offers the Humanities, esp. Chs. 2 and 5) and Slingerland & Collard 2011 (Slingerland E, Collard M. Creating Consilience: Toward a Second Wave. In: Slingerland E, Collard M, editors. Creating Consilience: Integrating the Sciences and the Humanities. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 3-40.).