Some scientific subfields are ridiculous on their face.

But there's a crucial difference between that and the way original rule is phrased.

The fields one has to dismiss are characterized by things one knows is false by physics or combinatorics or other common sense things. Theories of telepathy, the flat earth, creation science or whatever.

The "you can't show me one good paper on the subject" is an appealing-seeming pronouncement but it's really dumb way to do it. Just say, "that doesn't make sense and you'd need huge evidence to prove it". Paper quality isn't really the question.