> The examples in the article are totally meaningless.
Which ones and why are they meaningless?
> An idea is _not_ better accepted by some _because_ it replicates better in their brains. That's a tautology.
I'm not sure it's a tautology, as the same phenomenon could be explained (poorly) through updating of "credences," for example, or other explanations. In any case, if you think that acceptance of an idea must involve replication (or is indeed synonymous with successful replication at the expense of rival ideas), isn't that an argument in favor of the theory?
Which ones and why are they meaningless?
> An idea is _not_ better accepted by some _because_ it replicates better in their brains. That's a tautology.
I'm not sure it's a tautology, as the same phenomenon could be explained (poorly) through updating of "credences," for example, or other explanations. In any case, if you think that acceptance of an idea must involve replication (or is indeed synonymous with successful replication at the expense of rival ideas), isn't that an argument in favor of the theory?