Doing? Building a million go right to turn left massive acreage looping nonsenses to try and turn skinny old roads into something that can support higher traffic

I think we see in Emerson the Nietzschean ideal of rejecting the institutions and dogma of your youth to consciously and carefully choose your own value system, and embracing something to give meaning. Nietzsche found meaning in art, but art is a dialogue with other ideas and does not preclude philosophies or religions or German identity that Nietzsche abhorred. When you tell people to consider and reconstruct all value and meaning then of course they will end up in completely different places. Some will embrace a different kind of religion or nature worship or whatever, some will create a system of post-rationalism that allows for rationally choosing the morality of the masses, some will be racists or embrace national identity to imbue their life and actions with meaning, even if they know it's something they chose and not fundamentally true. And all of those choices I think Nietzsche would argue against.

I just wanted to say that both sides build models that may or may not be eventually tested. The testing is still critical to make any statement about reality, but the discussion is still worthwhile

You think Einstein actually rode in an elevator to determine if he could tell the difference between that and gravity?

It's true that there are some people who dismiss discussion of idealism and solipsism as a waste of time, but then there are also plenty of trained scientists who seriously consider and model ideas like multiverses and that we are in a simulation. The reality is that building models of reality or developing logical systems that are exploratory and not based in evidence is a part of science. But you cannot claim they are reality until you link them to data.

So if considering panpsychism and idealism are under the purview of logical positivism, even if most people would consider it a waste of their time and choose to spend their efforts somewhere else, then what other forms of knowing are there? Something that dismisses logic entirely, or posits an immeasurable form of the soul, or makes other grand dogmatic statements that cannot be supported? Why should I believe in heaven and hell versus reincarnation and entry into Buddha-lands versus an infinite list of other things I could invent?

I think part of this article's problem is mixing together the traditions and institutions of science with bare statements about logic and sensory experience.