Dave,

I think you mean reductionism rather than empiricism. As C. S. Lewis has so gently shown in his character MacPhee, empiricism leads to very strong ethical convictions. Empericist would, for example, be able to recognize the Yes Men's Vivloeum presentation as a satire. I think that if you look more closely at what McDonough is saying you'll find it quite empirically based. Where you are having difficulty is more in the level of (non-Hegelian) synthesis you are willing to appreciate. Reductionism, lacking synthesis, leads to a view of nature that holds the observer separate. I think you will find as you explore McDonough's work more thoroughly that while he relies on inspiration to move forward, his empirical groundwork is extremely sound.

The subject of Climate Code Red pretty much shows that unsynthesized reductionism leads to catastrophe. The observer, being biological, is not separate from nature and may not act as though that were the case without extreme consequences. The core problem with reductionism is that it attempts to legislate the value of pi. It attempts to take an intellectual stance that is useful for the purpose of study, a fictional stance, and act as though it were reality. Empericism does not attempt such foolishness.

Chris