Everyone on this thread is most likely familiar with the 1960s hypothesis by Thomas Kuhn “The Structure of Scientific Revolution” — and likely familiar with (as described in that book) a fairly sizable energy in the scientific community to show distaste and defensiveness about any problematic observations around any reigning theory that would question the existing “paradigm”. The scientific community literally feels threatened. There are papers galore about “post-modern” assault on “science” as the keeper of “truth”. I don’t buy this threat. I’m clear about honoring observation, empirical evidence, credentialed objectivity based on repeatable and verifiable process. That is to say informed logic. A radio talk show host or ideological zealots do not constitute science, but there is not a finality of truth just because the theory enjoys popularity and low deviation from the predictive science model that has helped the model leap the tipping point to legitimacy amongst esteemed experts. We live in odd times when change and information is at at such roaring volume and velocity that “subject matter experts” find themselves stumbling on uncharted data points … leaving, unfortunately, authentically plausible essays, like this one, to be in a cacophony that feels even more dispiriting than science circling the wagons and retreating into a cave.