I also don't think it's ad hominem to mention his reputation (in this case, because he earned that reputation himself), but I want to mention that this piece co

I also don't think it's ad hominem to mention his reputation (in this case, because he earned that reputation himself), but I want to mention that this piece completely mangles its description of the whole reproducibility crisis [1] and you would have to look elsewhere for a genuine discussion of the issues. This article isn't it. [1] The key example I think is this: he talks about the "decline effect", that you do experiments and find effects that later disappear ("When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe."), but completely misses the point that when a low-power experiment finds an effect (with a correspondingly large type-M error), it is not the effect that declines, the effect never existed in the first place, it is the experiment that was done poorly and should be discarded. It would be the most boring banal statement possible to say that scientific ideas can only be found by well-conducted experiments, but he doesn't do even that.