In order to be legitimate, the rival conjectures must be appropriate to the "current thesis," not its historical antecedents.
It is THIS KIND of rhetorical "sleight-of-hand" that pricks the suspicions of even those who no credentials with which to evaluate the evidence.
Furthermore, I challenge the assertion that further "stirring of the pot" is "progress" until a meal is served. The history of science is replete with such "progress" in refining failed paradigms.
Who could forget the seminal work Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein), published in 1931?
But you seem locked in the past, in 1954 with George Wald.
Why wouldn't you first like to learn where the science has gone in the past 63 years?
My guess is that alone will answer some of your sharp-shooter questions.
But nobody pretends that science today can answer every question, far from it.
Just more than George Wald in 1954.
papertyger: "I challenge the assertion that further 'stirring of the pot' is 'progress' until a meal is served.
The history of science is replete with such 'progress' in refining failed paradigms."
So, I take it you believe there's been 63 years of "stirring the pot" since George Wald in 1954?
And you are certain of this because you refuse to read any recent books on the subject?
Sure, that makes sense.
not