It doesn't even succeed in showing readers how not to be a jerk: "Present facts and evidence neutrally, the experts say." A god may have facts, but we mortals

It doesn't even succeed in showing readers how not to be a jerk: "Present facts and evidence neutrally, the experts say." A god may have facts, but we mortals have only evidence, and theories that explain the evidence more or less well. Is this not the central principle of science? But following scientific explanations requires certain skills, such as mathematics. And the mass media, including even Scientific American, do not print equations. So popular journalists treat scientists as, in effect, alternative gods, whose opinions may be weighted according to prestige, or by how well they flatter reader's prejudices, but cannot be otherwise tested or analyzed. Conspiracy theorists merely take more or less this same dysfunction to its extreme: a circle of Youtube pseudo-scientists, perfect conformity to reader's prejudices, and perhaps no numbers at all.