> Assuming a human author, on the other hand, the claims are probably true.
Maybe this is where we differ? I don't agree. People are mistaken all the time. Your hypothetical even assumes an untrustworthy human is directing the algorithm.
To me, the most convincing point in favour of the truth of the claims in the article is that nobody has contested them. The claims appear to be easily falsifiable, so the more scrutiny they withstand, the more trust they deserve.
Maybe this is where we differ? I don't agree. People are mistaken all the time. Your hypothetical even assumes an untrustworthy human is directing the algorithm.
To me, the most convincing point in favour of the truth of the claims in the article is that nobody has contested them. The claims appear to be easily falsifiable, so the more scrutiny they withstand, the more trust they deserve.