The general exercised of reviewing prior debate, now that ( some of ) the evidence is come in, seems very valuable, especially if one side of the debate is making high level claims that their veiw has been vindicated.
That said, I think there were several points in this post where I thought the author’s read of the current evidence is/was off or mistaken. I think this overall doesn’t detract too much from the value of the post, especially because it prompted discussion in the comments.
The general exercised of reviewing prior debate, now that ( some of ) the evidence is come in, seems very valuable, especially if one side of the debate is making high level claims that their veiw has been vindicated.
That said, I think there were several points in this post where I thought the author’s read of the current evidence is/was off or mistaken. I think this overall doesn’t detract too much from the value of the post, especially because it prompted discussion in the comments.
Would you give a summary of what you thought was mistaken in the post’s read of the current evidence?