>>>I agree with that, but it is NOT what he wrote. Your statement above is nothing close to what he wrote.
>
>Another semantic debate? ;-)
>
>I can see where you're coming from, but just to recap:
>
>>Nobel winners, in particular, have earned that kind of respect, to be disagreed with based on their analyses, not on their conclusions.
>
>Obviously you're not objecting to that. Then he continues:
>
>>> One can disagree with that also, but then one has passed beyond the pale, and genuine discussion on that topic is no longer possible with that person.
>
>I believe he's saying that genuine discussion is not possible with somebody won't accord enough respect to a Nobel prize-winner to debate their analysis rather than contradict their conclusions. Strong words, but true enough on first principles.
Contradicting conclusions based on separate analysis or different/new/additional scientific information is required of any conclusion presented as fact. I still disagree with his statement and I believe you are being overly generous in your understanding, but I will concede that he actually may have intended what you wrote.
.·*´¨)
.·`TCH
(..·*
010000110101001101101000011000010111001001110000010011110111001001000010011101010111001101110100
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
Vita contingit, Vive cum eo. (Life Happens, Live With it.)
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." -- author unknown
"De omnibus dubitandum"