We acknowledge weaknesses wherever we see them.
If it's entirely silly science, we don't write about it. (Haters take note: "silly" and "provocative" are not the same thing.) And if it's a small but interesting study, we'll write about it but make note that it's a small unrepresentative study and question a few limitations of it.
The article in question appears on "The Bulletin," which is a section that offers news briefs. What appears there is not intended to be a dissection of someone's research -- that's for elsewhere on the site. I can see how this would be misleading, because that article was too long to keep to this mission. But that wasn't the intention.
That said: if you have knowledge on the topic, add it in the comments section! "Smart" should describe our readership as much as our articles. So please, if you find fault with research that we didn't identify, say so. But don't shoot the messenger.
