After reading your Medium piece right after reading your Aeon piece and my head buzzing with your ideas, maybe a coherent strategy is to respond to each piece separately. The Medium piece, this one here, largely focuses on the “debates between meta-narratives” and your position that they are pointless, which I completely agree with.

(When you say “the [Aeon] article is not purely about a pragmatist approach to science,” does that mean pragmatism is a part of your position, or that if you were purely pragmatic, you would reject meta-narratives?)

If you want to say “science is a narrative” (and agreed, it is) I wonder if that goes the distance philosophically? It might sound like, having rooted out Platonism, you are saying “narratives are all we have left.” People might accept your position, but think of it as more of a placeholder or contingent belief, subject to revision. I’m drawn to argue “narratives are the only coherent explanation” or “narratives are all we are biologically capable of” so as to not leave an opening Platonism might seep back in through. Such arguments are narratives themselves, but could have influential value. I’ll try to say more in an Aeon response to your piece there, as it relates to your road sign discussion.