Weak evidence can more easily lead you on the wrong path. To be fair, the article acknowledges this, and addresses "potential upside", "cost of trying", and so on.
Nevertheless, my subjective feeling is still that potentially strong arguments are being watered down by weaker arguments. I believe I would have responded better had these been split into separate articles.
Nevertheless, my subjective feeling is still that potentially strong arguments are being watered down by weaker arguments. I believe I would have responded better had these been split into separate articles.