[srtjstjsj]

That approach just helps con artists rip off desperate ignorant people, promoting a worldview that magic is a viable alternative to scientific reality, a view held by a dangerously large and easily exploited percentage of the population.

[wpietri]

I don't think so. The NYT's customers know how to read an NYT article like this. I expect very few will come away with the notion that they should hire a dowser, and that the bulk would read it as intended.

If you have evidence otherwise, I'd be interested to see it.

[barbacoa]

You lack major introspective skills and self awareness if you think your beliefs are the "correct" ones and the rest of the world is full of fools. This kind of attitude has been on the rise and is a large part why public trust of our institutions is falling. No one needs to be protected from bad ideas they are fully capable of reaching that conclusion on their own.

[rchaud]

"Scientific reality" is in the eyes of the beholder, unfortunately. Plenty of people will happily accept 'the science says' type statements if it's something they already believe in.

Show them something that goes against those beliefs, and suddenly you'll be fielding skepticisms of sample sizes, P-values, the ideological leanings of the principal investigators, etc.

People do not live their lives governed by scientific knowledge, and ignoring that isn't going to change the status quo.