I'm not going to actually respond to a decade of writing in one comment. My comment was not meant as an indpendent discrediting of MM. My comment was meant as

I'm not going to actually respond to a decade of writing in one comment. My comment was not meant as an indpendent discrediting of MM. My comment was meant as a reading guide for someone who wants to read MM in good faith without wasting their time "down in the (irrelevant) weeds". A guide to the systematic flaws in MM's reasoning and writing style. The process really is common sense: 1. Figure out what MM is actually saying, the evidence he provides, and then -- instead of engaging with that evidence -- first look for the obvious counter-evidence. 2. Beware of implicit theses. If the post doesn't directly and unambiguously address some point of interest -- but instead of just kind of rhetorically implies a position on that point of interest -- then ignore it. It's not that MM is wrong "because common sense". It's that he's wrong, and the way of demonstrating he's wrong is by using common sense reasoning techniques instead of engaging with his inane details.