This uncritical acceptance of conventional wisdom mars the otherwise stimulating paper of McFarlane. One such unexamined 'wisdom' is the Cartesian divide between 'subject' and 'object', 'inner' and 'outer'. The result is a complete muddle in dichotomizing 'experience' and 'science' along the lines of 'inner' and 'outer'. Math is referred to as 'science of inner experience'. Then we are told about the virtue of math as a language of abstractions.
Abstraction is by nature experience distant.
Upon closer examination, it seems that the 'inner experience' has little to do with experiencing. While failing to do justice to the thought-provoking paper of McFarlane, I hope my comments have convinced the reader that regardless of whether the holy grail of 'integral science' exists or not, the dragons that engage the author in a mortal combat are real.