Another, different, scientist. No, but I think that he makes people believe that science is more definitive, unbiased, magically an accurate reflection of reality (that is, "true" or "real" or "correct"), and agreed-upon than it really is. I also worry that because his fields, which are relatively "hard sciences", are not being hit very hard by the replication crisis, that he is callous to the danger that the "soft sciences"' collective failure has done to science's mainstream image.