Interesting article. If I might "think out loud", and summarize:
Suppose I have decided that claim X is false. Now someone says, "Here is evidence for X." Then I am likely to think that there is deception involved: someone made something up, or misinterpreted something. Now suppose someone comes up with very strong evidence for X. I think: of course there is deception involved.
Thus, what is presumably strong evidence for X becomes, in my hands, strong evidence that either flawed reasoning or fraud is happening.
Suppose I have decided that claim X is false. Now someone says, "Here is evidence for X." Then I am likely to think that there is deception involved: someone made something up, or misinterpreted something. Now suppose someone comes up with very strong evidence for X. I think: of course there is deception involved.
Thus, what is presumably strong evidence for X becomes, in my hands, strong evidence that either flawed reasoning or fraud is happening.