> certainly doesn't seem sufficient evidence that we should disregard what he has to say.
No, we should disregard what he has to say because even his arguments against the century-old studies he attacks (while carefully avoiding modern work) were shown to be faulty. It's like (poorly) debunking phlogiston in the modern day, and expecting to be taken seriously.
No, we should disregard what he has to say because even his arguments against the century-old studies he attacks (while carefully avoiding modern work) were shown to be faulty. It's like (poorly) debunking phlogiston in the modern day, and expecting to be taken seriously.