Likely because it's presented as a rebuttal to the article, when the article makes no such claim. It's a non-sequitur at best, and possibly a straw-man argument.
That's not really a point in the article's favour. Instead it makes it kind of frustrating and pointless. Anyone can write unsupported assertions about anything. Maybe they're right, maybe they're not.
You are mischaracterizing what I said. Of course, stating the conclusion is fine. My point is that he never gave an argument for the conclusion that the article is bullshit. There is not a single statement in the article whose truth has been called into question.
This is hardly a rebuttal. I wish it had actually provided some content to address specific claims in the WSJ articles, rather than simply asserting that their central thesis is "just plain false" and leaving it at that.
I'm not particularly interested with whether the argument raised by the article is valid or not, which is why I left open several possible ways in which it could be fallacious. My point is solely that it's not an appeal to authority.
reply