If someone wants to actually engage in consideration of alternative hypotheses (e.g. a possible selection effect), feel free to ask me. We can also talk about why science makes progress by formulating and testing alternative hypotheses, not first oversimplifying them to the point that they're stupid, and then mocking them as making everyone stupider.

I can also explain why scientists don't read the whole paper (hint: it isn't so they can plead that they shouldn't answer criticisms of it when they highlight it in their writing). And I can explain why it's worth worrying about how scientists use p-values, what they mean, why scientists believe p-values should be de-emphasized, and how the authors of the paper in question did a pretty good job most of the time. (But only most of the time.)

I will do this without any appeal to authority, grandstanding, mindreading, or thinking identity is a good proxy for content. What you see is what you get.

Finally, I recommend that if you actually want to understand what I said that Robert's responding to, you'd better read the other comment thread and decide for yourself rather than going off of Robert's characterizations. My first reply is here: https://ichoran.medium.com/that-isnt-what-the-study-data-says-76d0bee074d7