Hayek (1948) introduced this now famous dichotomy, certainly in the continuity of Edmund Burke, between "true individualism" (of the British empiricist tradition) and the "false individualism" (of the French rationalist tradition).

The true individualism which I shall try to defend began its modern development with John Locke, and particularly with Bernard Mandeville and David Hume, and achieved full stature for the first time in the work of Josiah Tucker, Adam Ferguson, and Adam Smith and in that of their great contemporary, Edmund Burke-the man whom Smith described as the only person he ever knew who thought on economic subjects exactly as he did without any previous communication having passed between them.2 (Chapter 1)

This second and altogether different strand of thought, also known as individualism, is represented mainly by French and other Continental writers - a fact due, I believe, to the dominant role which Cartesian rationalism plays in its composition. The outstanding representatives of this tradition are the Encyclopedists, Rousseau, and the physiocrats; and, for reasons we shall presently consider, this rationalistic individualism always tends to develop into the opposite of individualism, namely, socialism or collectivism. (Chapter 1)

It was developed by Thomas Sowell, and is now a pervasive argument in pro-free market liberal conservatives (in the US, "conservatives") circles.
It divides the leftists, with a "utopian" vision of human nature (everything is a social construct, and human society therefore can be molded), and the rightists, with a "realist" vision of human nature (everything follows and a natural order, and human society should follow this natural order) (Arnhart, 2009).

Did someone point the factual and logical flaws in this Burkean/Hayek/Sowell argument?

References:

Arnhart, L. (2009). Darwinian conservatism: A disputed question. Andrews UK Limited.

Hayek, F. A. (1948). Individualism and economic order. University of chicago Press.