I think you missed the point a bit: the article was about scientific/religious discussion. The author was trying to make the reader (presumably an atheist and/or skeptic) feel the same emotional response that the religious feel when their beliefs are challenged. The whole woodsmoke thing was just an illustrative discussion: most people reading it will feel an instinctive negative reaction against having something they cherish so attacked, even with solid evidence.
So, it's neither an attack on fireplaces or religion: it's an attempt to make skeptics empathize a bit with those they're trying to convince.
> most people reading it will feel an instinctive negative reaction against having something they cherish so attacked, even with solid evidence
All I got was "Damn, do I tell my open-fire loving unscientific friends they're harming their children, or should I just keep quiet for the sake of an easy life?"
People in the skeptic community tend to diminish the fact that fellow humans tend to have involuntary emotional reactions in response to arguments, no matter how good the arguments are. If someone is heavily invested in believing in something like homeopathic medicine, they will experience a strong visceral feeling when you try to discuss homeopathy in a scientific setting. Even if they don't want to, the feeling may be there.
I'm not sure what the immediate practical or ethical implications of this are. I don't believe it's right to entertain any irrational or harmful belief just because it brings someone else comfort, but I tend to be less confrontational than Sam Harris.
Reminds me of what a therapist friend says about counseling, how you have to give a client a safe environment before you do any work.
Also seems related to the point linked from HN recently - ask someone a moral question, let them answer, and then somehow convince them they gave an opposite answer (they did this by secretly altering the paper questionnaire they filled out, and showing the forged answer to the subject) - the person will then often defend the answer they apparently gave, rather than the answer they really gave.
I think it's a good question. My best theory so far is to just lay out the reasoning to the person in a very accessible way, so they can accept it on their own timetable.
So, it's neither an attack on fireplaces or religion: it's an attempt to make skeptics empathize a bit with those they're trying to convince.