I would say that I was able to complete the program – the completion of the scientific enlightenment because I was lucky enough to live in an era of software programming, and lucky enough to understand how the philosophers of the nineteenth and twentieth century failed, because of that ‘odd’ exposure. If I had to say who was most influential it would be popper’s inability to complete his program, mises error in miscasting praxeology, hoppe’s success in using property as a unit of commensurability despite the error in his dependence upon kantian rationalism; and the observation that hayek came very close in his work on the law, but for his reliance ( like so many others) upon is perception of psychology rather than the computability and cognitive science that we have today. But that I was most able to articulate the argument clearly by combining those failures with the near successes of Hilbert,Brouwer, Bridgman in other fields.
I think aside from (a) programming, (b) we have sufficient information about the failings of mathematics in modeling (Not describing) economic phenomenon, (c) we have exceptional information on cognitive science and genetics (d) we have enough evidence of voting patterns under democracy, and (e) it is finally possible because of the internet to access information rapidly enough that if one works very hard it is possible to master multiple fields in one human lifetime.
So my ability to complete the program and provide the Wilsonian Synthesis ( solve the unification of science, biology, philosophy, ethics, law, economics, and politics,) was due largely to existing at the right point in time, with so many men who ca me so close just one or two or three generations before me.
Unfortunately, this is going to be one of those issues just like reason (aristotle) , rationalism (Descartes) and epiricism (Bacon, locke smith hume, darwin, menger, maxwell, spencer etc ) that is going to be as unpleasant to adapt to.