Well, one could always just read the paper and judge the science. Your comment above almost sounds like you won't because you think it's not worth reading it.
That’s a fair point. I skimmed it and got the gist of their approach, but I didn’t deep dive. It’s very hard to do what they’re trying to do rigorously. The real problem lies in the formulation of the question. It also doesn’t feel like they’ve “steelmanned” the original thesis, which is suspicious (tbf it’s rare in most of academia to see folks genuinely try to disprove their own position).
