Can you identify the factors which caused you to give the statements in this article more credibility than you would have given to any random internet source of an unlikely-sounding claim?
Mostly, the fact that I don’t know shit about biology, and the writer uses full, grammatical sentences, cites a few references, anticipates possible counterarguments and responds to them, and more generally doesn’t show many of the obvious signs of crackpottery.
This is exactly why I (amongst many?) find it so hard to separate the good-stuff from the bad-stuff.
It’s the way the matter is brought to you, not the matter itself. Very thoughtful way of bringing it, as Army1987 says, references, anticipation of counterarguments etc.
Mostly, the fact that I don’t know shit about biology, and the writer uses full, grammatical sentences, cites a few references, anticipates possible counterarguments and responds to them, and more generally doesn’t show many of the obvious signs of crackpottery.
This is exactly why I (amongst many?) find it so hard to separate the good-stuff from the bad-stuff. It’s the way the matter is brought to you, not the matter itself. Very thoughtful way of bringing it, as Army1987 says, references, anticipation of counterarguments etc.