I defended Sheldon Glashow's negative review in Inference of a popular quantum mechanics book by Adam Becker.
Most, if not all, popular accounts of quantum mechanics are filled with mystical nonsense about Schroedinger cats, entanglement, non-locality, etc. Instead of just explaining the theory, they do everything to convince you that the theory is incomprehensible. Becker's book was in that category, and Glashow's sensible review throws cold water on the nonsense.
Now Becker as struck back, and posted an article in Undark attempting to trash the online journal Inference as unscientific and aligned with evil Trump supporters. Inference responds, and so does Peter Woit.
I guess I'll read some more of those Inference articles to see if the journal really has a right-wing bias. If so, that would be refreshing, as Scientific American and all the other science journals have a left-wing bias. But I doubt it. In Becker's dispute, Glashow simply defends orthodox quantum mechanics while Becker's book is grossly misleading.
Becker says that Inference offered him a "fine fee" to write a response to the negative book review, and he declined. Most authors are eager to defend themselves against a negative review.
Among other things, Becker attacks Inference for this essay arguing that Copernican astronomy in the 16th century was somewhat more accurate than Ptolemaic astronomy. It appears to be a very good analysis. The gripe is that Tipler also has some unusual theological views that do not appear to be relevant to his essay.
Philosophers of science are always talking about the grounds for accepting or rejecting Copernicanism. And yet they hardly ever address the quantitative accuracy.
It has become typical for left-wingers to (1) cling to weirdo unscientific beliefs; (2) get very upset when an organization publishes views contrary to their ideology; and (3) launch guilt-by-association and character assassinations against those who permit contrary views.