Hn, although there is a lot of overlap between topics, they seem to all be from a literary analysis/philosophy perspective, rather than a scientific/philosophy perspective.

This means they're more likely to be flat-out wrong, more likely to consider the beauty of an argument rather than actually weigh the alternatives.

This is par for the course in the philosophy sections, where it's more okay to just express yourself and assume other people will find it useful. When they try to actually make predictions about science, using not-science, it gets pretty bad. Take, for example, the article "Temes, an emerging third replicator." The reasoning is quite awful. Everything I looked at was held to the same low, low standard when it came to making actual correct predictions. The only standard was for aesthetic appeal of the argument.