fvf wrote:
"Ok DA Morgan. If someone is offering an alternative view (well documented) they would evaluate it on its merits."
Not at my university. Well documented translates into stuffing pages.
Here's what it requires for something to have merit:
1. A knowledge of prior and current state of the art.
2. A proposal that specifically indicates, point-by-point, the differences from prior and current state of the art.
3. Evidence of where the current state of the art does not accurately describe objective reality.
4. Supporting evidence to show how the new paradigm both explains the state of the art and extends it where the state of the art can not adequately map observations.
Arguing that one person's opinions is as valid as another's may be true when discussing rap music or your favorite color. The mass of a top quark is not open to discussion unless you work at CERN or SLAC.
