>> I think it’s bad science, that will one day retrospectively be viewed as invalid scientific method.
> that's a claim without any evidence to back it [u]p.
You are correct. The irony is rich here.
I always welcome a good argument (whether in dispute or affirmation of an issue), but just saying "I think <XYZ>" doesn't make it so. Reading through this thread, all I see is the common HN Default Skepticism / Negativity -- but more so; skepticism with less scientific rigor than the work being criticized.