Berlinski is an excellent writer, in my opinion. I read his book a couple of weeks ago. You’ll notice, in this article, that he never splits an infinitive.
"This is because they seriously overestimated their own ability to think nimbly before a camera."
Beautiful!
Berlinski’s radical and often wrong-headed skepticism represents an ascendant style in the popular debate over American science: Like the recent crop of global-warming skeptics, AIDS denialists, and biotech activists, Berlinski uses doubt as a weapon against the academy—he’s more concerned with what we don’t know than what we do. He uses uncertainty to challenge the scientific consensus; he points to the evidence that isn’t there and seeks out the things that can’t be proved. In its extreme and ideological form, this contrarian approach to science can turn into a form of paranoia—a state of permanent suspicion and outrage. But Berlinski is hardly a victim of the style. He’s merely its most methodical practitioner.
I did observe that his structure and usage was impeccable. For that reason, I read his statements with acute wariness.
That kind of exceedingly precise verbiage can make you think that up is down and black is white if you're not careful.
I noted that he said it was untrue that the video presentation on cell operations was copied, an accurate statement. It wasn't copied; it was derived. A copy would be identical. This was only similar; too similar for coincidence.
Then he said that they didn't need permission to use a portion of "Imagine". Perhaps so. I don't know, but they could have asked, and they didn't.
These of course, are quibbles, and I am not here to quibble. Nothing I have learned of Ben Stein's movie compels me to interest in viewing it.
Narnia, however ...