Review of the "Learning Paradox" Manuscript

I hope and believe that the following review is like I would have written it had it not been due to appear in print after the article it is reviewing. Before I start, however, I want to make a few clarifying points about how I write reviews of papers for journals. First, because the paper is obviously the work of an experienced and sophisticated academic (and, of course, it is easy to identify the author from the self-citations in the paper), I am harsher here than I would be if I were reviewing the work of a less senior academic. Second, when I turn a paper down for publication, as I would in this case, my reviewʹs are usually fairly long and longer yet if I am particularly negative about the paper, as I am about this one. This seems to me a simple matter of justice. Finally, assuming that the author knows or can easily find most of the research literature I refer to in a review, I do not, in reviewʹs, give full citations to the literature, except when a piece of work is fairly new at the time I am writing. Thus, I do not give full citations here. Below, then, I start my review.