I was persuaded by the evidence cited by Harris in her editorial. I am categorically interested in Levitt's reasoning. Based on this article, his beliefs are miscallibrated, and that seems odd to me.

A broader question is what should happen when a scientist voices a non scientific opinion? A famous scientist is more likely to get my attention than some ordinary scientist or some pundit. Maybe I am a sophisticated consumer, or may be not. Should I believe this person just because he or she is a scientist? Should the scientist issue a disclaimer - "this is my non scientific opinion"? I think a point Harris is making is that if one is going to opine while wearing the mantle of scientific authority - Nobel, Stanford prof - your arguments should be robust. Harris met that standard for me.