I wonder if they snickered when they wrote this.
No more time for me this week. I’ll simply note that when you say:
[T]he credibility of scientists is diminished when they slip into using analogies as attacks to stand in for scientific debate.
you seem to forget that we’re talking about op-eds, op-eds published in the Wall Street Journal. This is not where scientific debate.
If you ask a tough question and the other person starts blustering, calling you a fool for asking, etc. there is a decent chance that you are hitting a little close to something relevant that needs to be explored.
My view is confirmed when my statement of irrefutable empirical evidence and argument from that evidence is dismissed as “gibberish” and is bolstered by links to lies and insults about me from those who do not like the evidence and argument I present.
This paragraph merits due dilligence:
Integrity can refer to data:
Integrity can refer to moral soundness: