I am so anachronistic. I remember those days when we settled scientific debates by actually going into the lab (you know, those places where people [wear] the long white coats and use equipment) and doing science. I know, it does seem rather ridiculous by the methods championed here. Clearly the modern way is to write op-ed pieces or popularized books that declare victory anytime a new record that may be problematic, or at least can be cast as problematic, is added to the experimental database. In days of yore what we used to do (you'll get a kick out of this) is to see if the current theory can explain the new data and if it could not we would either modify it or, if it was beyond saving, we would jettison it. Is that a gas or what? But I understand that since this takes time and work it is much more efficient just to accumulate short-term political mileage while we can.Not exactly my best prose, I agree. But by the standards of commentology, does the above even approach rude, tasteless or offensive?
NOTE: if you wish to make a comment on this post make it substantive. Comments that are merely insults will be deleted.