Or at least attempts to. He writes,
Without being and doing, no knowing could have emerged in evolution. The empiricist tradition misses this central issue, thus is deeply inadequate.
You'll want to read the rest. I think a process perspective already understands much of his criticism and can avoid it, and process is deeply empirical.
I did agree with his argument that there is no gap between is and ought, contra Hume:
A bacterium swimming up a glucose gradient for food is an agent, reproduces and the rotating flagella is just one of the work cycles the bacterium does. All living cells fulfill the above definition.
But once there is agency, ought enters the universe. If the bacterium is to successfully get food, it "ought" to e.g., swim up the sugar gradient. Without attributing consciousness, one cannot have "actings" without "doing them wisely or poorly," hence ought.
In short, the empiricist tradition, in ignoring agency, wishes to block us from "ought," when we cannot have doing without "ought."