This, I will demonstrate, is actually itself a specious and pseudoscientific argument coming from Feder and reveals his own bias towards authoritarianism and the hypocritical promotion of pseudoscience that he favors, while condemning science."When you attempt to deconstruct a well-accepted paradigm, it is reasonable to expect that a new paradigm be suggested in its place."
Science in each culture that I have encountered it is about presenting all evidence, however it is acquired, and assessing two things:
1. the validity or invalidity of the evidence (which is measured differently depending on the philosophy, but in "Western" schools it is about a bias of doubt demanding "repeatability" of evidence)
and
2. making reasonable suppositions from favored evidence to arrive at hypotheses that can be tested to arrive at reliable theory
Scientism, on the other hand, is the worship of any supposition, hypothesis or theory as being above the scientific method. This would include especially the tendency to use inconsistent and contradictory methods of avoiding the continual process of the ongoing primary stage, the assessment of evidence.
Ergo, when someone says "it is reasonable" to "expect" that the assessment of evidence should be halted or that the work of building theory from suppositions and finally hypotheses should be halted because the assessment of evidence should be halted, that is an argument against science.
When someone says "it is reasonable" to "expect" that the work of building theory from suppositions and finally hypotheses should be replaced by assumptions of any kind, that really seems to be an argument against science and for the realm of religion and philosophy.
Finally, when someone says "it is reasonable" to "expect" that maintaining paradigms is the focus of science, that is an argument against science and for authoritarian religious thought disguised as science.
Of course the process is never complete. That is what makes science open to reality and not in the business of managing paradigm shifts (unless you speak to the Tavistock institute, the CIA, religious schools or others in the actual business of managing beliefs and paradigm shifts. They have been known to immorally and unreasonably employ science as a weapon to control minds).
It may be accurate to say that shifting paradigms in one's self and in others can be dangerous because of the social implications. And it may be accurate to say that it is wise to avoid danger. However, it seems elitist and authoritarian to consider one's self perfectly capable of conducting science while telling others that it is "dangerous" to do the same, and to mislead them about what science actually is.
It's like covering one's tracks with a branch, and then yelling back anyone wishing to join them should obviously only do so by hovering over the path to them. Feder, and any other supremacist, should be more careful when making remarks towards bodies of work that are recognized as having scientific value. His unreasonable fear of evidence makes his arguments look weak and it makes the thing he calls weak look strong.
Any way the quote is read, unless you try to find some "hidden meaning" in it, Feder in the context of his expertise comes across as an authoritarian supremacist bully when implying that theory should be formed first rather than suppositions first. At best, he seems to have a gross misunderstanding of the accepted scientific process, which reflects poorly on any body of theory he would present.
Perhaps he needs to take his own advice and before attempting to deconstruct a well-accepted paradigm of science, he should suggest a new paradigm of science in its place. Then again, its resemblance to pseudoscientific scientism would put him on very shaky ground.
If I were to choose authorship to examine with respect prior to reading, based on the remarks of Feder or Cremo/Thompson, I would be more inclined to choose the latter first. I'd rather trust someone presenting evidence (practicing science) rather than suppressing it for personal gain.
Is this all I need to know from what we might get from his book?
From a podcast interview, via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_FederOn the first day of class he tells his students "Don't believe me because I'm the guy at the front of the classroom [...] its all about did the things that I'm saying are they researched? [sic] Is there evidence to back it up? Question authority."
Indeed. Indeed.