> certainly doesn't seem sufficient evidence that we should disregard what he has to say. No, we should disregard what he has to say because even his arguments

> certainly doesn't seem sufficient evidence that we should disregard what he has to say. No, we should disregard what he has to say because even his arguments against the century-old studies he attacks (while carefully avoiding modern work) were shown to be faulty. It's like (poorly) debunking phlogiston in the modern day, and expecting to be taken seriously.