lustyd
Well-known member
It's not just about that one issue, this is a very well known phenomenon and it's always been the same. Take the Harrison clock - astronomers went out of their way to discredit him and his method despite significant evidence that it worked flawlessly. There's a difference between asking for more evidence and actively fighting against progress or listening to reason.Maybe another way of looking at it is that it took a generation's worth of data to irrefutably show that there was a trend and not just randomness. I do question the implications of this, and your previous post (to which I responded) that all experts are only interested in preserving the status quo until retirement. That being the case, which generation of experts do we believe and which status quo do we choose to accept?
I have to say I was impressed with Frank recently after a lengthy thread on AI when he did go on to research and accept that times are changing. He stated he didn't like it, but did accept it's probably the future. Many others I've had that conversation with continued to fight and try to explain why the current system is the correct one.