Replies to the argument (Stephen Law, Michael Bergmann, and others)

Critics argue that true beliefs are generally more useful than false ones, since acting on accurate information tends to aid survival, so natural selection would push toward reliable thinking, not away from it. Some also argue that a naturalist can reasonably keep trusting reason even if its prior probability is hard to calculate. In reply, defenders of the argument note that survival can sometimes be served by useful fictions, and that selection acts directly on behavior rather than on the content of beliefs. The exchange remains unresolved among specialists.