One of the things that does make me suspicious of the science is exactly what we see in this post...This highly respected scientist is called a fool, a denialist. a good scientist gone bad, an aggrieved child and that his is not knowledgeable and is going senile.
I fail to see the problem. Do you think that in science your reputation might provide you tenure on truth or immunity from criticism? Should I point towards
James Watson?
Einstein denied the conclusions of quantum physics - and he was an expert in physics. Are we not allowed to criticise this? Suggest it might have been related to age or pride?
Only religious institutions have the concept of infallible practitioners, surely?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
