You’re making a lot of assumptions about me on the basis of, as far as I can tell, no data. (Either that, or you’re using “you” to refer to someone other than me.)
For what it’s worth, I agree that this is an excellent way to discuss unsubstantiated theories, although I would also say that after a certain point the onus is on those presenting the theory to show that their methodology and results are meaningfully different (and better) than previously disproved attempts to do the same. Otherwise, each new re-presentation of the same theory becomes, not part of the process of discovery, but rather just a tedious nuisance.
What I was doubting (and still doubt) is that doing so would change the way science is thought about among those who dismiss it out of hand.
You’re making a lot of assumptions about me on the basis of, as far as I can tell, no data. (Either that, or you’re using “you” to refer to someone other than me.)
For what it’s worth, I agree that this is an excellent way to discuss unsubstantiated theories, although I would also say that after a certain point the onus is on those presenting the theory to show that their methodology and results are meaningfully different (and better) than previously disproved attempts to do the same. Otherwise, each new re-presentation of the same theory becomes, not part of the process of discovery, but rather just a tedious nuisance.
What I was doubting (and still doubt) is that doing so would change the way science is thought about among those who dismiss it out of hand.