I think I agree with your main point, but it's important to distinguish between various kinds of "wrongness". The Bohr atom is "wrong" in the way that a cartoo

I think I agree with your main point, but it's important to distinguish between various kinds of "wrongness". The Bohr atom is "wrong" in the way that a cartoon is wrong. Newtonian mechanics (and non-relativistic quantum mechanics, for that matter) are "wrong" because they are approximations: at certain length scales or time scales they work perfectly, but at other scales they break down and need to be replaced by something more precise. The kind of "wrong" that this article is discussing is much different: biased experimental design and lousy statistics. Unlike the other two kinds of "wrong", this is actually a problem. I've seen thousands of hours wasted - some of them by me - due to lack of knowledge of the principles of statistical significance, or because someone found a way to fool himself into cherry-picking the most interesting data points. Public service announcement: If you're still in school as you read this, take a stats course!