An open letter to the closed minds

[Garth]

Explain the cosmological model you think is more consistent.

May I humbly suggest SCC?

Garth

 

[russ_watters]

For example russ watters said, "In the letter, they go so far as to call support for the BBT dogmatic.
in fact the passage in the statement reads,
"So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry."
This does not sound so unreasonable to those of us who have had reasonable papers ignored or ridiculed. As I have said below the landscape looks different on the other side of the fence.
Lets all keep open minds on the subject.

Garth

In fairness (to me), as the word "dogmatic" is pretty emotionally charged and unhelpful (like "ridiculed"), I want to make it clear that that isn't my word. The quote I was referring to was this one (the sentence after the one you quoted):

This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

 

[Garth]

In fairness (to me), as the word "dogmatic" is pretty emotionally charged and unhelpful (like "ridiculed"), I want to make it clear that that isn't my word. The quote I was referring to was this one (the sentence after the one you quoted):

Actually I did quote that sentence! Indeed in order to show it wasn’t your word but to put it in context in the statement.

Whether the phrases "a growing dogmatic mindset" or "(discordant data) are ignored or ridiculed" are emotionally charged or not is not really so much the issue as the question, "Are they true?" There seems to be a number of people who seem to think they are, but are they justified in making that point?
We are not talking hurt feelings, egos and reputations here, although undoubtedly they are a factor, but the scientific process.
Garth

 

[russ_watters]

Actually I did quote that sentence! Indeed in order to show it wasn’t your word but to put it in context in the statement.

Oops - didn't read closely enough. Sorry.