I think this is a dangerous precedent for media coverage of science.
If there is any doubt in your mind, you never read what Feynman had to say about Millikan's experimental results for measurement of elementary charge. Some scientists cheat at science, so they can be more popular. And this is why we don't trust conclusions until after they are independently repeated.
If someone were to produce real, verifiable experimental data that defied the political consensus, they would be blackballed from explaining them on BBC.
Bill Nye has to keep debating because the available data are not so unambiguous that princes and paupers could each reach the same conclusion independently, even with all their personal biases. He even debated Ken Ham over the origins of species, after all. True scientists must have the courage to stand up and repeat, over and over, what they have found--via collection and analysis of evidence, defended before their peers, and verified by their rivals--to be the truth, as long as there is even one person that still doubts. And the purpose is not to browbeat that last man into submission, but to assist them in devising an experiment sufficient to quell that doubt.
Silencing the ongoing debate, even if one side or the other is obviously delusional, is completely contrary to the spirit of science. With science, anyone is allowed to question anything, and the worth of the question is determined by the evidence gathered, not by an editorial board.
If there is any doubt in your mind, you never read what Feynman had to say about Millikan's experimental results for measurement of elementary charge. Some scientists cheat at science, so they can be more popular. And this is why we don't trust conclusions until after they are independently repeated.
If someone were to produce real, verifiable experimental data that defied the political consensus, they would be blackballed from explaining them on BBC.
Bill Nye has to keep debating because the available data are not so unambiguous that princes and paupers could each reach the same conclusion independently, even with all their personal biases. He even debated Ken Ham over the origins of species, after all. True scientists must have the courage to stand up and repeat, over and over, what they have found--via collection and analysis of evidence, defended before their peers, and verified by their rivals--to be the truth, as long as there is even one person that still doubts. And the purpose is not to browbeat that last man into submission, but to assist them in devising an experiment sufficient to quell that doubt.
Silencing the ongoing debate, even if one side or the other is obviously delusional, is completely contrary to the spirit of science. With science, anyone is allowed to question anything, and the worth of the question is determined by the evidence gathered, not by an editorial board.