I found the argument in this article a bit weird. Seems to go like:
- There was an Opinion column in a newspaper, focused on a book review, that had a headline that was clickbait-y and slightly misleading (TRUE)
- This opinion column (meanwhile recalling that opinion columns are effectively arguments-for-and-from-perspective) was not 'balanced' with opinions like mine; (TRUE)
- It's frustrating that there is a book about this that does not mention my preferred explanation [n.b. I have bought but not yet read this book, so I cannot myself comment, but for the sake of argument, let's say, TRUE]
- There are some other scientists who have also done excellent work in this field and they are not being mentioned and they may or may not have different opinions, however I will hereby insinuate that they share my view (possibly, TRUE? I don't know e.g. Jill Tarter's view; haven't had a chance to google around.)
So, this article seems to say a bunch of plausible things, but none of which are terribly well-motivated or compelling.
- Opinions columns are allowed to be cases for/against a view, and are not expected to both-sides any given issue;
- The book itself _just is_ a principled, accessible, scientifically-informed argument for the position opposed by Scharf; it's not clear why Scharf needs to write an article apparently decrying both the book and the review of it --- as if the articulation of the position itself was somehow beyond the pale
- Recalling that writers seldom get to pick their headlines, I still worry that the title of this piece (riffing on Sagan's _Demon Haunted World_) implicitly associates demons and aliens as equivalently fanciful. Now, they may well be, but given that *this is the question presently under consideration*, I cannot help but feel a question begged, or at least, prejudiced.