"Forgo skepticism and read it objectively..." First off, I don't see how reading something objectively means foregoing skepticism. To me, reading something objectively requires skepticism (in general, I realize the word has many connotations). Being skeptic simply means not accepting the truth of something by default, requiring some kind of evidence and some kind of legitimate logic linking that evidence to some conclusion before accepting the truth of the conclusion. I didn't go into the article with the assumption that the conclusion was wrong, I went into the article thinking, "I don't know if this is true." The arguments are simply not good arguments as far as I can tell, they don't hold up to scrutiny. I still have no idea if the conclusion is true, all I know is that the arguments I read don't lead me to believe that the conclusion is true.