[gambler]

> The anti-intellectual, anti-scientific streak in many poor analyses claiming to debunk some scientific research is deeply concerning in our society.

People endlessly reference the Dunning-Kruger effect as a meme, without ever having read the paper, let alone having checked its methods. You don't seem to have a problem with that.

On the other hand, after seeing an article that uses essentially statistical arguments to debate a scientific study you conclude that there is some "anti-intellectual, anti-scientific streak" in our society and that it should be of grave concern.

This doesn't make any sense except as an extreme case of virtue-signaling.

[notahacker]

Seems quite reasonable to argue that superficially plausible "debunkings" by people that apparently misunderstood a paper are more harmful to scientific progress than people casually referencing the scientist's names as a meme or insult. (And I say that as someone who didn't think the DK "debunking" argument was totally without merit)

What's more harmful to medicine: a fashionably non-expert contrarian who doesn't understand the appropriate null hypothesis making a superficially plausible statistical argument that actually the trials suggest the drug is harmful to wide acclaim from laymen, or people casually referencing or even being administered the drug without reading the original trial writeups for themselves?