Spooked What do we learn about science from a controversy in physics?

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. You said you were loving this; don't throw a tantrum, when you're tiring of your lesson

The article is not about evolution; it doesn't mention it. It's about science; it mentions, in passing, the interpretation of hominid fossils, and the proliferation of hominid species - "all those near-men and proto-men and half-apes" - that the interpretation shows, and which we non-specialists are unable to do ourselves, and for which the results are not agreed among the experts.

AlbertCat misinterpreted that; he said "the genome proves evolution happens even if we had never found a single fossil". But it wasn't about how any existing species has evolved, which is what genome analyses show; it's about the proliferation of hominid species. The article never disputed that evolution happens.

It doesn't dispute that science works, either, or that there are objective truths to be found using it. What it does say is that social interactions between scientists can affect the way and speed that results are arrived at, and gives the examples from the books under review. You seem to think you can show that the disputes between, say, Einstein and Bohr, don't have any effect, and that the history of science is always simple. Meh. Historians of science disagree with you, and they give their reasons; you don't. You're throwing your toys out of your pram because you want a simple story.