I dont think i have given them any credit. I would argue i simply didn't dispute them out of hand. Especially as you did without backing myself up with evidence of my own credentials.

I also thought i expressed that we should all be sceptical of anything we read on the internet. My issue was how you weighted your sceptisism. You seem to have automatically given all credibility to a reporter, under the assumption that they held no bias that affected the story they wrote.

For all you know, the random poster on the internet may be a legitimate scientist and expert who disagrees with them. Their opinion may be just as valid as the opinion in the report.

As a recent example, google released a quantum computer chip, and lemmy immediately ripped apart the reports and media buzz around what it was actually capable of. I believe that this is a great example of healthy sceptisism.

I believe that what you did is an example of unhealthy or misplaced sceptisism.

Granted, if it turned out that this random poster was absolutely unqualified to make the assertions that they did then absolutely you would be in the right.

I just dont think its helpful to dispute them out of hand with nothing to back you up.

This is actually a fair and good question to ask. Being too credulous of things read on the Internet has shown rather problematic in recent years. Taking everything written in academic journals, especially opinion pieces not based upon peer-reviewed evidence, without skepticism has shown to be problematic since before the Internet, however.

I'm kind of surprised by the reaction you're getting here as I had the same exact question (you can see that I posted it before seeing yours).

Knowing that the person has some background in biology helps, but that was not clear in the initial comment. And even still, I lean toward believing the actual professionals who have studied this exact thing for years over some random person on an internet forum.