It is very good that the New Yorker is bringing this phenomenon to attention. However I am puzzled by the reporters styling of Professor Dave Explains as an "anti-skeptic." I always thought it was the skeptics that rejected claims not backed by good evidence, like religion and so called alternative medicines, while accepting the consensus of scientists working in the relevant field because it is.
Didn’t we have a thread a few days ago regarding the lack of expertise in WSJ’s scientific/technical research and understanding department? What’s all this now?
4 comments