OP's criticism was useful, because there is indeed a gap that needed to be filled and you did just that, thanks. Conversely it would have been bad to take what

OP's criticism was useful, because there is indeed a gap that needed to be filled and you did just that, thanks. Conversely it would have been bad to take what the article says at face value - that's how you end up believing in astrology. Even Nobel prize winners can go terribly wrong, after all [1]. But as you said, not everyone has the knowledge or time to dig the connection between the two statements out of the paper. I can only suggest to ask questions when one does not understand something; sarcasm in particular can backfire hard when you're wrong. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease