You can think what you want to, dude.Nardi's work is nothing but a gigantic fallacy of the converse. He has yet to demonstrate that his descriptions of types are consistent with their supposed underlying mechanisms, not the other way round. If you call a frog a water lily, portray it as a water lily, search for water lilies in the wild and say, look, it's the evidence that frogs exist! what you do then is running the scientific wheel backward.
And that's the problem with nardi and all the introverts who try to be scientists and should stick to writing fictions instead.
If you only understand that frogs live close to water and are green, and instead of questioning the relation between those symptoms and frogs, you use them as proof of you observing frog, then any water lily will confirm that you're observing a frog. So what happens if there's an actual frog among dozens of water lilies? Nardi would call that.. a lack of statistical significance.
Statistics are no science, just like playing with scanners, having a phd and writing books. Oh, actually he isn't a neuroscientist? Fantastic. Faith in academy a little bit restored.