[reasonaway]

he examines specific claims made by Taleb in detail and shows them to be completely wrong in every case. that can be reasonably described as addressing the substance of his arguments.

can you identify any specific problems with the analysis in that post?

discussions around taleb often have a very cult like aspect to them - a refusal to discuss specific empirical claims made by Taleb and an assumption that the critics are too dumb to understand taleb's deep mathematical criticisms.