Those weren't journal articles. The one you read and keep linking is mass market news feed sensationalism.joe said:If you are to be believed, one must believe that the nation's most preeminent journals are biased and publish poorly written articles.
And the poor writing is highlighted in , among other places, your confusion - you posted from it a quote of the scientist Wolfers as if it supported your claims. I blame the journalist - it was easy to mistake the meaning of that quote, from the article.
And you never checked it with anything Wolfers wrote otherwise. Or you were deliberately misrepresenting Wolfers's views with a quote out of context. Two possibilities. Choose.