Just read the article and my main problem is that it's rambling AF.
* Introduces a bold claim as its supposed central thesis ('I want to suggest that many of the worst chapters of this history result from scientism: the ideology that science is the only valid way to understand the world and solve social problems') then doesn't touch on it again
* Makes a detour into scary but only tenuously related topics (IQ, eugenics) before getting to his actual point
* Seems to forget on occasion if he's arguing a point or just philosophising ('Can the self become not merely extended but distributed?'; that whole weird paragraph about Lisa Park at the end)
* Saves 80% of its point for a few pithy and un-argued-for sentences in the closing paragraph ('the idea that Western science and technology are the only reliable sources of self-knowledge is no longer tenable... Defining the self only in biological terms tends to obscure other forms of identity, such as one’s labour or social role.') Um? His whole schtick about the biological self being a fuzzy concept is *based on* "Western science" and he explicitly refers to scientific evidence to legitimise those claims. Nor does he talk about "labour or social roles" anywhere else in the article.
Good as a collection of cliché postmodernist talking points to get lesswrongers riled up, but not good for much else.
Eh, I think some of it is just box-ticking in terms of case studies of scientism. I definitely agree with the point about "Western science," though, which is a pet peeve. Ironically, that concept is imbued with its own sort of scientism. The Pinker-style "critique," if you can call it that, though, boils down to "History man say science bad, but science good."
Bonus: Sneer from the author. (There are some problems with the original article, but none of them are identified by Pinker or Coyne.)