Comment Re:"anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN"!!! (Score 5, Informative) 323
Peer review is still our gold standard of publishing quality, at least when applied consistently by reputable publications. Nobody's claiming it guarantees perfection, but it's the best available for new information.
If a paper has been properly reviewed by experts in the field, and you are not an expert in that field yourself, then you'd best take it seriously until further notice. You may "suspect" the theory has flaws, but as you're not citing any, it's pretty safe to dismiss your baseless suspicions as standard Dunnings-Kruger - you don't even know why you don't like it, so you're attacking the whole process of peer review instead. Perhaps you should apply the same level of scepticism to your own gut reactions?
Just FYI, this paper is a follow-up to the original 2009 paper which originally described these nine boundaries, and that found we'd already passed three of them. That paper has not only not been withdrawn, it has nearly 14,000 citations, so it's clearly stood the test of time. Finding that more boundaries have been passed in the last 14 years is not exactly an "extraordinary claim", and claiming such only further undermines your own credibility.