I don't mean to imply that I think all the points the article makes are bogus because there are some insightful things that are said, especially near the conclusion.

I do think the format is extremely poor, granted that it's an opening speech, and not a real paper. My only concern is that when people just see the abbreviated version (like what we have here), it can breed as much haywire logic as something blatantly false.

Also, in my shameless defense, here is a (not/credible) blurb about the value of psychology, which is a separate topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#Controversy_as_a_sci...