One needn't prejudge the outcome to judge that Berkeley's arguments about why certain things were impossible were completely fallacious.

This is really complicated -> I didn't immediately think of a way it could work -> physicalism is false is a frequently-advanced but (as I've described it here) obviously invalid chain of reasoning that philosophers keep coming back to.

One could also talk about the ways in which scientists muck up philosophy with unexpected intellectual clumsiness, but that wasn't my goal for this article.