> The people you're quoting clearly read at least part of the article (they quoted or paraphrased it). I think it's fair to assume they thought anyone reading t

> The people you're quoting clearly read at least part of the article (they quoted or paraphrased it). I think it's fair to assume they thought anyone reading their comments would read them in the context of the article. That's true, but it doesn't respond to either of my concerns: 1. Did the commenters gloss over the criticism? Do they understand that the criticism of bicameralism is more scientifically valid than the idea itself? 2. Could an HN reader who didn't read the article gather from the comments that bicameralism is not established scientific fact?