In what follows, I will call arguments like this Hegelian Arguments. Specifically, Hegelian arguments are arguments, based on little or no empirical evidence, to the conclusion that some scientific approach ... will fail. (p. 7).You can see how this will play out. Criticism of Gibsonian psychology and radical embodied cognitive science consists of Hegelian arguments.
There is a nice irony here. Chemero accuses Chomsky of giving Hegelian arguments against behaviorism. But, does Chemero go through a painstaking dissection of the evidence or argumentation in, say, Syntactic Structures? No. Chemero's reply is an argument based on little or no empirical evidence. Not exactly a Hegelian argument, but an argument that apparently shares the objectionable feature of a Hegelian argument.
Chemero also describes Fodor and Pylyshyn's critique of connectionism as a "nearly Hegelian argument". So, rather than working through the long details of the F&P paper, or any background literature, Chemero is able to set aside the F&P critique.