[lostmsu]

It an argument against wasting your time reviewing a "theory", because if the author failed to spot a simple tautology, what does it say about him being logical in the rest of the work?

Especially with the extraordinary claims.

[dchacke]

You didn't answer my question about which claims you find meaningless and why. But now you've changed to calling the claims "extraordinary," which is quite different from "meaningless"--one might argue a claim couldn't be both at the same time. Which is it? Or which claims are which and why?

Btw, neo-Darwinism generally has been criticized for being tautological (the "better replicators spread better" stuff). The article even addresses that. Do you find neo-Darwinism generally to be a logical mistake because it contains this well-known tautology? Or do you only find the tautology problematic in this particular instance because it's a new application of neo-Darwinism?

If you found logical mistakes in the rest of the article, I'd be interested in hearing them.

[lostmsu]

I did not know about neo-Darwinism prior to your comment. I was addressing specific statement.

Because of your request, I skimmed through parts of the article again, and again only found tautology: "Why do some people believe some things over others? Because some ideas spread through their minds better than others."

I can not claim it is illogical, but because it is highly tautological, it is very useless, and I don't wish to spend any more of time on it.

[dchacke]

I'll respect your wish not to spend any more time on it, and will leave you with two closing comments:

1. Like I said, the article is aware of and addresses the tautological nature of neo-Darwinism generally.

2. The part you quoted is not useless because, if true, it refutes other (en-vogue but false) theories about "reasons for belief," such as higher/lower numeric credences, stronger neuronal connections, etc.