[frereubu]

Your characterisation of my arguments is not fair. I specifically said I appreciated his historical podcast, so I'm certainly not a zealot. And to remove doubt, I'm not an artist critiquing science from a point of ignorance, I have a scientific background too, indluding a masters in neuroscience. Gladwell's mischaracterisations of science are widely distributed, and I think that's why he comes up so often - if he was a relatively unknown blogger nobody would care. It's frustrating to see this kind of scienciness get so much attention when the people who do the science he writes narratives about, and whose work he piggybacks on, are much more circumspect about how widely their work generalises.

Again, I have said there are multiple critiques which go into detail about what is wrong with Gladwell's writing, so if your problem is the "nebulousness" of a comment on Hacker News (which is no place for a detailed critiqe), then I suggest you look for them if you're genuinely interested in why people have a low opinion of his science writing.