But you can just apply this to anything. I feel unlike unless you're an insider with skin in the game, your criticism doesn't land other than a generic surface one.

To be clear, I apply an equal deep skepticism to most fields that aren't math (in the sense of a priority) or physics (in the sense that you aren't trying to study the entire world, but a specific set of phenomena that you can reliably control enough + repeat to run intervention on), whether the results agree with me or not. Maybe a bit of intellectual closed-mindedness. But then that means that me, personally, I can't in good faith use the criticism as a proper 'debunk' argument - at best it's a heuristic to avoid spending cycles to evaluate it (which is 'rational' behavior, as much as I hate that word, IMO).

People love nitpicking about scientific articles, it kind of exploded with the pandemic. Especially when the conclusions of the paper don't align with the expectations of the reader.

The way I see these is "these persons invested a lot of time putting this together and all I have to counter it are personal vibes", so unless my LLM of choice can find plenty of conflicting papers, I tend to assume it's reasonably valid work.