I'm not sure if this is where you were going with this, but I think this is a subtle attempt of the author to discredit or impugn the target of the article. They could have used the term "libertarian" or "protester" or…
So many things about that are depressing, like, why would someone cut into a tree like that, and why would they decide that, if one of the trunks is gone, the whole thing needs to be decimated? Both are completely…
That's what the original paper is kind of about. The Scientific American piece is a little misleading to me, because it implies the paper is about lack of evidence, when I think the original paper is a bit deeper than…
I'm not sure if this is where you were going with this, but I think this is a subtle attempt of the author to discredit or impugn the target of the article. They could have used the term "libertarian" or "protester" or…
So many things about that are depressing, like, why would someone cut into a tree like that, and why would they decide that, if one of the trunks is gone, the whole thing needs to be decimated? Both are completely…
That's what the original paper is kind of about. The Scientific American piece is a little misleading to me, because it implies the paper is about lack of evidence, when I think the original paper is a bit deeper than…