By his own "logic", we can't even be sure they're tidally locked (because how did we determine that? Modeling!) Which I mean, is technically true because hey welcome to science where confidence intervals are a thing.
Surely the specialist knowledge comes after the general knowledge? If a Nobel prize winning Astrophysicist says "there are exoplanets where you can make a perpetual motion machine" you would not let him get away with that?
The guy further up was just saying that there are general things about modelling (a very broad topic that reaches across all of science) that don't add up.
Ultimately, reasoning about observations are authoritative, not credentials.
You're demonstrating exactly why general knowledge isn't enough to analyze specialized concepts! Your rhetorical question may seem to the layman to be a witty retort but it just demonstrates ignorance of the topic at hand.
In the case of your perpetual motion machine example, anyone with even slightly specialized knowledge of (astro)physics would know that there are no fundamental phenomena like the conservation of energy that prevent life on an eyeball planet, unlike with a perpetual motion machine. This is the rhetorical equivalent of comparing a Mount Everest expedition to intergalactic teleportation.
> The guy further up was just saying that there are general things about modelling (a very broad topic that reaches across all of science) that don't add up.
No, he was just saying that there are general things about how modelling is used. He didn't say a single concrete thing about the article itself and proceeded to demonstrate vast ignorance wrt this specific subfield of scientific modelling.
He did say something concrete, which is that we have no observations to compare the model to.
Which is wrong. That's my point. You wouldn't know that without some specialized knowledge in astrophysics and how the models are developed and verified.