Blacknad wrote:
"But it would be helpful if your criticisms were balanced, once in a while."
I thought I did a remarkably good job when I stated what I believe to be the truth: "I know you are far too intelligent a person ...."
Now where did I learn to write this way? Next time I'm in B'ham I'll tell you. That is not a subject to the web.
But please do not blame scientists for being human. We are. We make the same mistakes. The same errors in judgement. And have the exact same weaknesses as do mortals.
What distinguishes us, I believe, is what distinguished the Founding Father's of America from those that came before. We believe in a system of checks-and-balances. We readily acknowledge the errors of Einstein, Bohr, Darwin, and others that some would like to put up in a Pantheon. We demand that authors subject themselves to peer review. Not even a Hawking or a Gell Mann or a Feynman can publish without being put into the cross-hairs. In short ... we do our best to be intellectually honest. And when we find someone like that biologist in Korea who faked his results ... we rather quickly catapult them into the moat. We're not perfect but we're not barristers or politicians or used car salesmen either.
Blacknad wrote:
"I apologise for having doubts, but heck, you are the one that introduced me to doubt in the first place."
No apology required. I'd rather have you doubt and question than accept at face value.
Blacknad wrote:
"Reading my post again - it doesn't represent my thinking accurately."
I had a pretty strong indication of that or I'd have never used the word "disingenuous." That is a word I don't use without carefully consideration. Oh heck then I just throw in a litre of petrol to make sure.
I wish you'd been at the AAS meeting here in Seattle. The number of times undergrads challenged the accepted norm was refreshing. Sure they will have their feet put to the fire and be expected to provide further proof. But when they do ... they will be honored ... not scorned.
