> This one line is emblematic of the flaws in the article.
I don't think you can reasonably dismiss this article based on that line.
(1) It's just an aside, not part of the main argument; (2) It happens to be true.
Anyway... "Who knows, it might help" is OK (well, better than nothing), when there's not a significant cost to pay. But when there is, you need to go deeper.
There's a tradeoff being made and if you don't think of it that way, you're going to make a poor decision.
I don't think you can reasonably dismiss this article based on that line.
(1) It's just an aside, not part of the main argument; (2) It happens to be true.
Anyway... "Who knows, it might help" is OK (well, better than nothing), when there's not a significant cost to pay. But when there is, you need to go deeper.
There's a tradeoff being made and if you don't think of it that way, you're going to make a poor decision.