Hello cornelis! Truly I'm glad to see you again, it's been a while.
WRT the above italics: The statement does not immediately convey meaning for me; suggesting that I'm going to have to think on it for a bit more. Yet certainly, it is most provocative. And it seems to fit very well into this discussion.
When I referred to anthropocentrism in the earlier post, my reference was to the view of modern science regarding certain epistemological issues potentially affecting the integrity of its method. One gathers that in some scientific quarters, anthropocentrist thinking is considered a very bad methodological error, or at least very bad form. Yet it seems anthropocentrism is practically unavoidable, since all thinking of which we are aware is taking place in the human mind, including all scientific thinking. The elucidation of natural law depends on human observation and reasoning. I don't see any practical way to "take the man out" in such situations.
On the other hand, it is said that our universe gives the appearance, at least, of having been "fine-tuned" for the purpose of generating and supporting intelligent, carbon-based lifeforms such as we are. That'll give the materialists the hives every time; but there are people walking around today who notice such things, and say so.
Which is to say that, at the scale of man and at the scale of the universe, anthropocentrism seems somehow strangely bound up with natural reality. It would be very interesting to explore these points further.
And so I thank you for providing a potentially new "window" from which to view these matters. Thank you so much for your fine post, cornelis.