Sure, pattern matching like that is a shortcut that inevitably yields some false positives. I think the amount of credence it lends is basically an inverse of h

Sure, pattern matching like that is a shortcut that inevitably yields some false positives. I think the amount of credence it lends is basically an inverse of how much time you want to spend on the issue. If you want to engage deeply, you do your own research; otherwise, you end up taking the word of people whom you already trust. I don't mean to imply that it lends credence beyond that. I just think it's unfair to characterize this as if only one side were doing the painting, when multiple groups of people seem to have reached similar conclusions.