I have one (insignificant?) beef with the article, in that it positions critics of a scientific discipline as those who decide the validity of the 'status quo'

I have one (insignificant?) beef with the article, in that it positions critics of a scientific discipline as those who decide the validity of the 'status quo' - this is right, that is wrong - which is a rather bleak picture of what their role is for. Criticism is as intrinsic to the development of a theory/experiment as is the effort of the scientist. In short, science critic != movie critic.