Are you saying the difference between the performance of the two groups wasn't statistically significant, or that their methodology is flawed, or that their results were not reproduced in other studies?
It's possible that their theory is bullshit, but it seems like you're discounting the data it is based on without cause.
I usually assume that SciAm does a decent job of making sure they print credible articles. So I would generally assume that the experimental design was good.
It's possible that their theory is bullshit, but it seems like you're discounting the data it is based on without cause.