The author seems to want more of this[0] kind of high-quality refutation. Here's another, this time a blog post[1] and a rebuttal[2]. Very different examples, o

The author seems to want more of this[0] kind of high-quality refutation. Here's another, this time a blog post[1] and a rebuttal[2]. Very different examples, one in medical science and the other just blogosphere musings, but both are public counters to public originals, rather than direct communications with the original's authors. That said, I'm not clear on why the author thinks that we're at a "turning point" in deciding whether it's socially acceptable to just publish an argument against something else that was published. Maybe in the scientific community that's a strict norm? It certainly doesn't seem to be in the blogging community. Maybe the author is worried that good arguments are lost in the semi-private twitter scuffle with the original authors of papers and articles? Maybe they hope that people will respond to broadcasted arguments intended for the general public with counter-arguments that are also broadcasted, instead of directed? I don't know. It feels like I'm missing the article's "prompt". 0. https://kylesheldrick.blogspot.com/2022/03/evidence-of-fabricated-data-in-vitamin.html https://kylesheldrick.blogspot.com/2022/03/evidence-of-fabri... 1. https://erikhoel.substack.com/p/why-we-stopped-making-einsteins?s=w https://erikhoel.substack.com/p/why-we-stopped-making-einste... 2. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/contra-hoel-on-aristocratic-tutoring?s=r https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/contra-hoel-on-aristoc...