Same can be said of climate scientist warning about climate change.

I think the nature of the problem is a bit different. Anthropogenic climate change is sort of generally accepted, though the specifics on how the climate will change are not well understood

If the scientist is somehow vested in climate change being as horrendous as possible - then I would imagine a person like that would become myopic to information that ran counter to their "interests". I wouldn't see them as impartial. (For instance if they made regular paid appearances on TV to expound on the dangers of climate change)

But in the same vein, Dawkins will be myopic to arguments counter to evolution - which I think is fine - b/c that's not contested ground

Triathalons aren't some constrained thing like evolution - where triatheletes all live to 100 unlike the rest of the plebs. So it's more like the effects of climate change. I'm sure it's having some effect.. but your career depends on it being "good" things

All researchers have biases and some results are sexier and one gravitates to them - but here the researcher is really out on the fringe with her conflicts of interest

No it can't, unless you think a single assertion is equivalent to unanimous consensus among the scientific community, which is clearly asinine.

In this case, I think both climate change and the positive mental effects of exercise have pretty strong consensus.

Article does not mention triathlon at all, it's more a breakdown of each single activity.

This is such a Hacker News comment and I don't mean that in a positive way. The link between exercise and health, including brain health, is so well established that calling out this "conflict of interest" is more a well-dressed ad hominem, not a meaningful critique.

Attack the argument not the person. Oh wait you can't because she's right.

The Hackernews reply would be to start arguing with the science by cherry picking some papers and quoting some popscience articles. I think you need to acknowledge when you don't know enough.

I'm not a neuroscientist or doctor. I have no ability to engage with the science - and I'm not going to start pulling papers out of my ass to support some counter argument. I have no idea if she's right or wrong. I just know that at a cursory glance of her profile she seems to have an agenda. That's all

I rely on the expertise of dedicated professionals to do the "arguing" and investigating the science. All I can do is vet them and see if they're impartial