I find three major shortcomings in Mele's account. First, verbal ambig
uities suggest that the analysis is irrelevant to self-deception and/o
r that the traditional conception is subtly reinstated. Second, the da
ta offer no means of establishing the superiority of the present accou
nt. Finally, as political rhetoric, Mele's proposal not only operates
to disqualify others, but establishes science as their judge.