The contradiction pointed out in the article (section 2) doesn't require domain expertise to understand. Basic comprehension will suffice for that.
The misquoting of sources doesn't require domain expertise to understand.
The misleading way that data is presented in graphics doesn't require domain expertise to understand.
The author's credibility is not relevant when the claims are easily falsifiable by yourself.
You should read Gelman's more positive take on the article. He's someone that's quite credentialed, if that's what you're looking for.
"I disagree that a "researcher" is a loose label"
It is a loose label that's commonplace in industry.
Researcher isn't synonymous with academic.
"The first thing to do when one finds fault with someone else's work is to contact the other person"
I agree with what you're saying here. It would've been better to contact him privately first.
The misquoting of sources doesn't require domain expertise to understand.
The misleading way that data is presented in graphics doesn't require domain expertise to understand.
The author's credibility is not relevant when the claims are easily falsifiable by yourself.
You should read Gelman's more positive take on the article. He's someone that's quite credentialed, if that's what you're looking for.
It is a loose label that's commonplace in industry.Researcher isn't synonymous with academic.
I agree with what you're saying here. It would've been better to contact him privately first.