People will gladly accept bad proofs if it furthers their beliefs or identify politics. They will also argue wrongfully against correct proofs. And they will in

People will gladly accept bad proofs if it furthers their beliefs or identify politics. They will also argue wrongfully against correct proofs. And they will influence others. I assume that's the point of the article; people who are not educated to identify nonsense will accept nonsense or decide to trust nothing. This is obviously very ham-fisted, but I believe that's the idea.