"Science and Society", "Science and Technology Studies", and several similar fields are basically devoted to writing this sort of article. If this came from a chemistry professor, I'd be stunned; from a 'professor of science and society', it's almost exactly what I'd expect; that's a humanities field that studies science, often from a postmodern viewpoint.

I don't even say that as criticism; it's worth reminding people that you can follow the scientific method with real rigor and still get a completely wrong result. My biggest gripe about this article is that it missed opportunities to make its point more strongly and clearly. For instance, it could have benefitted hugely from discussing Daryl Bem. (The professor who 'proved' ESP exists with more rigor than most published psych results.)

But yes, it's pretty much the origin I would have expected.

edit: Just looked up the CSPO, and all of the same reactions apply. It's explicitly not a scientific consortium, it's devoted to analyzing the societal impacts of science and technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Read the wikipedia article on Argument from authority before making such comments.

Nice try on confusing the meaning of argument from authority though.