That quote is a category error. It’s about moral judgment of people, not epistemic evaluation of claims. I’m not condemning Le Guin, her character, or anyone who enjoys fiction. I’m saying a specific explanatory claim about how stories relate to truth and human cognition is false.

If “judge not” applied here, then no scientific criticism is permissible at all. You couldn’t say a theory is wrong, a model is flawed, or a claim is unsupported, because the critic is also imperfect. That standard would immediately end every serious discussion on HN.

Quoting scripture in response to an evolutionary and cognitive argument isn’t a rebuttal. It’s a frame shift from “is this claim true” to “are you allowed to say it.” That avoids engaging the substance entirely.

If you think the argument is wrong, point to the error. If not, appealing to moral humility doesn’t rescue a claim from being false.