Jandila, you haven't been here long enough to know this unless you're a long-time lurker; but lukeprog has an outstanding reputation as a scholar. He consistently supports his posts with large numbers of painstakingly cited studies, and has written guides on how to do scholarship.

So, for you to successfully attack him on his scholarship here, you would first have to build a good reputation for seeing flaws that nobody else has noticed, or build a really, really good case behind your accusation and present the whole thing.

With your comments here, you didn't do either of those, so they weren't received very well. But LW isn't the kind of community that punishes people for having been wrong. If you stick around, and learn the standards of evidence and argumentation that play well here, who knows--you might eventually convince LWers of your point.

So... you personally would have been happier with short descriptions of the experiments suggesting these conclusions, and a bunch of verbose footnotes that discuss some of the complexities of the research, like I've done in many other posts?