The suggestion at the end of the article that very notion of the Enlightenment has outlived its usefulness is problematic. Clearly something happened in the 18th century that involved the backfooting of faith in favour of reason and empiricism, and the beginning of the end for absolute government in much of the Western world.
Anti-intellectual neo-populism has set its sights on those changes for almost 200 years, and today the enemies of the Enlightenment can be found across the political spectrum, from the post-modern Left to the populist (and equally post-modern) Right.
As such, the division of history into a period we identify as "the Enlightenment" is a useful tool for wrapping up a bundle of related ideas. Sure, we could say we are defending Bayesian decision making against non-Bayesians and anti-Bayesians, but that would be an anachronistic term to apply to Kant or Adam Smith. So keeping the idea of the Enlightenment alive, while recognizing it as the embryo of the Bayesian revolution, is the optimal course.
Anti-intellectual neo-populism has set its sights on those changes for almost 200 years, and today the enemies of the Enlightenment can be found across the political spectrum, from the post-modern Left to the populist (and equally post-modern) Right.
As such, the division of history into a period we identify as "the Enlightenment" is a useful tool for wrapping up a bundle of related ideas. Sure, we could say we are defending Bayesian decision making against non-Bayesians and anti-Bayesians, but that would be an anachronistic term to apply to Kant or Adam Smith. So keeping the idea of the Enlightenment alive, while recognizing it as the embryo of the Bayesian revolution, is the optimal course.