The distinction I have in mind is, does your presumption for the establishment view lead you to presenting sloppy arguments that wouldn't impress you if contrarian? That's how Shermer looked to me, while Dawkins, for example, didn't, even when he makes mistakes. I'm biased towards some views that Shermer sneered at caricatures of, it's true. (I don't really want to look for specifics now -- stuff going on in my life.)