  In this essay, I argue that the idea that there is a most fundamental
discipline, or level of reality, is mistaken. My argument is a result of my
experiences with the "science wars", a debate that raged between scientists and
sociologists in the 1990's over whether science can lay claim to objective
truth. These debates shook my faith in physicalism, i.e. the idea that
everything boils down to physics. I outline a theory of knowledge that I first
proposed in my 2015 FQXi essay on which knowledge has the structure of a
scale-free network. In this theory, although some disciplines are in a sense
"more fundamental" than others, we never get to a "most fundamental"
discipline. Instead, we get hubs of knowledge that have equal importance. This
structure can explain why many physicists believe that physics is fundamental,
while some sociologists believe that sociology is fundamental.
  This updated version of the essay includes and appendix with my responses to
the discussion of this essay on the FQXi website.
