I think you obsess over this stuff but you're rarely wrong.
It's because he's rationalized the motivations and causes of ills we see in society by working backwards towards generalizations (inductive reasoning) that may not necessarily be the exact motivations or causes of those ills, even though the result is the same and his logic is sound. Because his logic is sound and it all "makes sense", he has no need to explore alternatives, so further evidence merely reinforces the "model" or framework of reality.
It is not even surprising that he can make hypotheses that turn out to be correct, when his model is not mutually exclusive with alternative models, and most likely overlaps with reality. I can neither say with 100% certainty that he's wrong, but I have no need to accept his conclusions when other explanations exist. (which would need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis)
tldr: i dunno about all that but maybe he's right about some things
It's because he's rationalized the motivations and causes of ills we see in society by working backwards towards generalizations (inductive reasoning) that may not necessarily be the exact motivations or causes of those ills, even though the result is the same and his logic is sound. Because his logic is sound and it all "makes sense", he has no need to explore alternatives, so further evidence merely reinforces the "model" or framework of reality.
It is not even surprising that he can make hypotheses that turn out to be correct, when his model is not mutually exclusive with alternative models, and most likely overlaps with reality. I can neither say with 100% certainty that he's wrong, but I have no need to accept his conclusions when other explanations exist. (which would need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis)
tldr: i dunno about all that but maybe he's right about some things