Reviewer has chosen not to be Anonymous

Overall Impression: Good

Content:
Technical Quality of the paper: Good
Originality of the paper: Yes, but limited
Adequacy of the bibliography: Yes

Presentation:
Adequacy of the abstract: Yes
Introduction: background and motivation: Good
Organization of the paper: Satisfactory
Level of English: Satisfactory
Overall presentation: Excellent

Detailed Comments:

The paper has been substantially revised from its original version, and as a consequence has substantially improved. It is now no longer a pamphlet with personally addressed critiques based on social media posts but is now a paper based on proper references in the literature. The paper is by its nature not a technical contribution. Instead it is partly a survey of the state of the debate in favour or against neuro-symbolic approaches, and partly a set of arguments to dispel some objections against neuro-symbolic approaches.

I leave it up to the editors-in-chief if they think such a part-survey/part-agenda/part-polemic paper is suitable for the journal. Readers of the journal that are already steeped in neuro-symbolic AI will find little of novelty in the paper (many of the arguments have been well rehearsed in the literature), but the paper might be a useful introduction to the debate for newcomers to the field (e.g. PhD students at the start of their career).

As said, I leave this strategic decision to the editors-in-chief, since it concerns the aims and scope of the journal, but in any case unlike the first version, this revised version now passes the bar of academic standards.