The problem I see on RG's blog, and why I couldn't actually get beyond a cursory reading, is it's overuse of analogies. which is a pet peave of mine.
Analogies are not evidence of anything.
It is like saying:
A is sort of like B
If B then C.
C, therefore A.
This is logically incorrect anyway.
If you know A -> B, and you know B is true, you can not deduct anything about A.
If you know A->B, and you know B is false, then you can deduct A is false. (Modus Tollens)