No they aren’t in this sense. I’m really not sure what you are attempting to convey here, maybe you’re being defensive for reasons unrelated to this topic, but your links aren’t talking about doing ultrasimplistic studies that don’t properly model the problem and treating results as fact. They mean simplicity in the Occams Razor meaning. Occams Razor is about the simplest solution being the most likely (e.g. don’t invent a ton of conclusions) and in fact is a philosophical argument for the existence of god.

Please don’t condescend people and definitely don’t go around arguing that science holds unrealistic simplicity as a core tenant.

I should have been more clear.

The comment I replied to seemed to make the following reasoning: "a lot of junk science uses oversimplified models; this work also uses an oversimplified model; therefore, this work is also junk science".

And my intention was to point out that this kind of reasoning is invalid, because simplification is an important aspect of the scientific process.

There's simplification, and there's "Spherical cow on a frictionless plane in a vacuum".

Yup, the only word a physics professor likes more than “negligible” is “trivial”.