aptsvet

A plausible, rational framework not rooted in fact is either a set of axioms or a doctrine that rests on faith. The tag "pop EP" indicates that this plausible, rational framework is driven into the masses by persuasion rather than the argumentation from undisputed observations. I am not going to be upset that this approach is not working or generating resentment that you dismiss as "politics." What else can be expected? I do not find this approach "wrong" only because it follows the old bad precedent of exposing poorly supported evolutionary ideas before incomprehending public -- well before these ideas gain any currency; I just do not see any merit in it. If every school of thought will try to assert its own truth by public appeal vis-a-vis other schools of thought, nice science we'll get out of such performances. I see more and more of it (not only in the evolutionary sciences: say, string theorists vs. LQG, climate change enthusiasts vs. skeptics, and so on) and the result is pretty dismal. Darwinism would make greater strides towards becoming a widely accepted way of thinking without the proselytizing zeal of its acolytes. When something is true, it is true, and no circus is required to convince the others that it is true. But if something is not quite true, but badly wanted to be true, then, of course, anything goes.