Just because his arguments, data and synthesis thereof are of a scientific nature, does not necessarily dictate that his language must be so. Remember, he is trying to make this work accessible to everybody, not just intellectuals because if you gentlemen and women haven't noticed, scientists tend to write in a very dry and boring manner. Furthermore, his criticisms are substantiated in his other works and publications. @anti-anti-architect: there is a big difference between despising a PERSON and strongly disagreeing with a PERSON'S methodology / idea. Get it?

so...
he digs Alexander and Krier, despises everyone else, and wants a novel/traditional synthesis?

I was made to understand there was a theory here...

I find it somewhat confusing that an essay which begins by calling into question the rigor of nearly all 20th century architectural theory ends with paragraph after paragraph of unsubstantiated and oddly vague accusation.

"Certain stylistic fashions and dogmas..."
"Critics dismiss..."
People are led..."
"Those who profit ..."
It goes on and on.

Which dogmas, exactly? There seem to be a lot of them floating around these days, it's hard to keep track of them all. Who are all of these people? Wouldn't at least a few specific cases need to be investigated, in order to establish something resembling an objective understanding of the general condition of design? Perhaps I'll just have to wait for the next zany installment.

This stuff drives me nuts but I can't not read it, like a roadside car crash, I can't look away. Must be why you're publishing it. Personally I think (in all seriousness) this gentleman should listen to the recent Kanye interview and learn a thing or two.

This piece has the tenor of juicy vintage propaganda. I feel a strange compulsion to, I don't know, grow a victory garden, or buy a war bond... or something.

He has a couple of points I find interesting, but I agree with Andrew Carija. It is worded quite strongly. I think the reason is simply to underline the idea that we should not read this book with our education and what we learned there in mind, as well as that this chapter still feels like part of an introduction somehow. Read it like the first book on architecture you have ever read.

I find the amount of vitriol and aggressive language the author levels against modern architecture quite off-putting. For a book that claims to be a scientific approach to architecture, I find this level of unsubstantiated criticism quite unprofessional and unscientific.

I am afraid that there will be at least another 6 chapters of this. Nikos is a life-long friend of Christopher Alexander and the two have collaborated together extensively. Among the circle of Traditionalists and New Urbanists, his work is a rally cry to gather the troops and is spoken in a way that reaffirms that group's predominate view of architecture while demonizing the opposing side. For outsiders this rhetoric is very hostile and will reduce the credibility of the arguments.

Here is my suggestions for everyone. Watch Lance Hosey's talk at TEDCity (starting at 1:28:14 on Session 3. View here: http://new.livestream.com/t.... Lance discusses the exact same facts that Nikos will get into around eventually in a very positive and professional manner that allows for the growth of the profession to consider mathematical and biological principles.

Lance Hosey is an actual architect who truly understands the point of making practical, pleasant buildings that take the human scale into account and are sustainable. Nikos Salingaros is basically an amateur art critic trying to scientifically justify his subjective preference of the Neoclassical style. Since when is a marble, Neoclassical building similar to a natural form? Should I make a list of Neoclassical buildings that are in fact far from the human scale when it comes to their ceilings, doors, windows and other components?

Agree, as I read these Nikos arguments presented here and in his books, most of the times it seems he is as you said gathering troops against demons and this approach really reduces credibility and also leaves the feeling of missing the important point, the theory per se.