This article has an odd futility about it--it cites scientific studies on why people aren't persuaded by scientific studies, and intends them to be persuasive.
Seriously, I can imagine a scenario where, in an argument, someone presents scientific evidence. Their opponent responds in the usual dismissive way, and then the first person presents this very argument.
I agree. Something very pretentiously meta about it. The author writes that the findings are shocking, but I'd have been shocked only if people ended up trusting "science" (whatever their notion of that is) in both groups.
Seriously, I can imagine a scenario where, in an argument, someone presents scientific evidence. Their opponent responds in the usual dismissive way, and then the first person presents this very argument.