GOT IT

I think it was implied from the "new book on his complex scientific research" that he is indeed savvy with science. By saying his book doesn't warrant attention from any serious professionals, I feel like it implied that his work is insufficient because of a, b, c which are all personal attack reasons and has nothing to do with science.

An example is that you're a chef with a new fine cuisine cookbook. You've been arguing that critics of your book are all chefs with their own cookbook and that's the reason why they don't praise your book. Add to this that I think you're a douche, smell weird, and I heard you're cheating on your wife, your cookbook clearly shouldn't be read by any serious chefs.

At this point, the issues I spotted immediately is the obvious personal attack and the relationship it has in the argument. It's the scale tipper! If it would have gone down a more descriptive path of actual things wrong with the cookbook, it may have possibly shaped up to an alright argument. But it takes this turn and goes, "but the deciding factors were a, b, c. So this is why professionals shouldn't read your book." Those factors had nothing to do with the book, and now it's a deciding factor on whether your book has good recipes in it? Of course not! It could have the best recipe for lasagna ever, but because of all these other reasons, I'm saying that nothing in your book can possibly hold merit. So I'm using a personal attack that has nothing to do with cooking as evidence that you can't possibly have any good recipes/are a good chef.