[jerf]

"I feel this article is guilty of exactly what it argues against.... Instead of accepting this, he simplified each view that contradicts his own down..."

Do you know what a "field guide" is? They're not generally full course textbooks on zoology.

If you want a more full treatment, I hear there's this "Believing Bullshit" book by, I don't know, some guy or other, I heard about it somewhere. (Haven't read it, so I can't guarantee it has any given thing, but I bet it's a good deal longer than that article.)

I think one is generally allowed to allude to belief in extraterrestrial visitation and psychic powers being a bit on the poorly-grounded side without popping open a footnote and pouring 150,000 words on the topic into it, especially in what is basically a sales pitch for a longer work.

[TikiTDO]

Sure, if I wanted the full treatment, I also hear there's this "Believing Bullshit" book. Unfortunately, I recall reading a synopsis, and I get the feeling that I would be wasting my money were I to buy it. The tone and content of the article in no way suggested that the book would be anything but more of the same. This isn't something you could fix with a footnote, or by writing 150,000 words on the topic. It is, I feel, a fundamental flaw of the author.

Maybe I'm being too hard on the book, and it is actually much more interesting than the article gives it credit for. Unfortunately, I'm not particularly interested in looking into the matter, and that is where the article failed for me.