That's somewhat of a cop-out. You yourself claimed that Scott is otherwise engaged and took it upon yourself to question the veracity of Martin's critique.
I simply asked you to offer a rebuttal, citing Scott's article - which you have read - as Martin has done.
Still you offer no rebuttal and yet you are prepared to make what can only be described as unsubstantiated claims that the "ground has shifted so fundamentally."
Not from where I'm standing.
Care to elaborate?