[Mary-Jane]

Science, indeed any intellectual thought, won't progress without contrarian views challenging the/your status quo.

[edgyquant]

Also if they’re wrong (those being contrarian) who cares? Hypothesis and there’s should be able to defend themselves rationally against any attacks if they can’t then they are not studied well enough to have rigorously tested the hypothesis

At least imo, sure misinformation is one thing but if we’re talking about other scientists I assume, not some layman on facebook

[kspacewalk2]

Once the mud slinging stuff like "he's a scientific racist!" comes out (especially when it's clear the author would vehemently disagree with the label), you gotta somewhat adjust your Bayesian priors that the person slinging the mud isn't doing it because he ran out of rational arguments.

[throwaway4666]

Yes, this is the usual precanned retort when faced with the fact that one's fringe viewpoint isn't in line with the mainstram science. It's not an argument though, in that it doesn't tilt the balance of probabilities (from a Bayesian point of view) away from the initial prior (i.e. the fringe is likely wrong and experts are likely right - note that I said likely, not 100%, like a good Bayesian). If anything, his elementary mistake about Crick, his failure to stay up to date with recent findings about African DNA, and motivated agenda with roots in scientific racism are tilting in the opposite direction.

[Mary-Jane]

I have no skin in the game; didn't even read the article. "You're just being contrarian so you're wrong" is a weak and lazy retort. I did appreciate that op provided a counter-perspective though; that's rare.