If you want to know how this poorly-reasoned article happened, skip to the end:
Rationality is risk management, period.
Trader Taleb suffers from the “if all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail” syndrome. IYI indeed…
No, I haven’t refuted anything he said, but why should I? In other words, what would constitute a rational justification for the demand that I explain myself?
Someone who didn’t agree with Taleb could claim “You’ve given zero evidence for your view!” or perhaps accuse me of ad hominem. But as Taleb has just argued, demands that someone’s beliefs be based in good evidence or sound logic aren’t “survival-based” demands, so they aren’t “rational” demands. Perhaps the more survival-oriented “If you don’t point-by-point refute what Taleb says then we will kill you!” would constitute a “rational justification” for such demand?