I think you&#x27;ve misunderstood my objection on every level. I&#x27;m not saying that every pop scientific article should be written so that a layperson can understand all proofs involved, and so on. I&#x27;m saying that given what I, as a layperson, can see in the article, his claims seems suspicious. They don&#x27;t seem logically coherent. They seem to contradict themselves in obvious ways.<p>If a thinker can&#x27;t present his ideas in a logically coherent way, there&#x27;s no reason for me to go through the very time-consuming process of reading a long series of academic papers.<p>Reading his definition in that paper makes me even more suspicious of his argument here. It&#x27;s a common problem among academics in specialist fields that they demonstrate a limited claim, and then state a much stronger claim for a popular audience. The claim in the abstract of the paper is that &quot;perceptual	systems tuned solely to fitness routinely outcompete those tuned to truth.&quot; The claim in the interview is that &quot;an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness.&quot; Those aren&#x27;t the same. The first is much stronger.<p>My suspicion is that he&#x27;s taking his eccentric or exaggerated views and presenting them on the same level as the more reasonable ideas from his research.