When I read a story about person X being proven wrong the question upper most in my mind is: how did X react? If they retract then they still have my respect and can keep on doing whatever work they were doing. If they dig in their heels and insist they are still right, or that a minor fix will make the proof correct (more common in our area than in history) then they lose all my respect.
The tenth paragraph has the following:
Within days of the article’s publication, King admitted that the fragment is probably a forgery. Even more damaging, she told Sabar that “I haven’t engaged the provenance questions at all” and that she was “not particularly” interested in what he had discovered.
Dr. King should have been more careful and more curious (though hindsight is wonderful) initially. However, her admitting it was probably a forgery (probably?) is ... okay. I wish she was more definite in her admission but... I've seen far worse.
A good scholar will admit when they are wrong. A good scholar will look at the evidence and be prepared to change their minds.
Does Breakpoint itself do this when discussing homosexuality or evolution or global warming. I leave that to the reader.
However, my major point is that the difference between a serious scientist and a crank is what one does when confronted with evidence that you are wrong.