He got this part right:

There’s an old saying that I’ve grown quite fond of recently: you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. When most of us “research” an issue, what we are actually doing is:

Formulating an initial opinion the first time we hear about something,

Evaluating everything we encounter after that through that lens of our gut instinct,

Finding reasons to think positively about the portions of the narrative that support or justify our initial opinion,

and finding reasons to discount or otherwise dismiss the portions that detract from it.

Problem is, we catch "scientific experts" doing this regularly, with the added step of "collect data that supports my initial opinion, or the opinion of my funding."