The piece seemed kinda disingenuous to me. Although everything said was kept very general and abstract, the author seemed to obviously have many specific events

The piece seemed kinda disingenuous to me. Although everything said was kept very general and abstract, the author seemed to obviously have many specific events of "barbarism" in mind. The following section was bristling with thinly-veiled anger: > This self-driven accumulation of “knowledge” has created a healthy dose of skepticism among the public toward facts and arguments, as well as a more intense public engagement. Some speak of the modern citizen as a “proto-scientist,” emulating, no doubt incompletely, some of the well-established practices of academia. It is no longer enough for experts to argue by means of what mathematicians fondly call “proof by intimidation.” The authority of science has been eroded by these public debates, a subject that deserves a separate discussion. One of the immediate consequences is that the scientific community will have to spend much more time engaging with policy makers and the public, not only communicating the products of research, but also the scientific method itself. These are some pretty harsh accusations, suggesting that everyone falls either "for" or "against" science, assuming that it has a unified thrust and direction. The accusations are cushioned and a bit removed though, like a dog-whistle. I decided to check out the guy's twitter, and it turns out he's a super fan of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, which makes me wonder if the "barbarians" that he's referring to in very vague terms are religious people, "Bell Curve"-naysayers, social justice people, and the like. Kind of a weird post, simultaneously trying to sketch out a distant, objective, apolitical high-ground perspective, while being clearly driven by it, and unwilling to be upfront about such incidents.