Well, congratulations. It took some time but you did eventually get my point. As I said from the beginning, individuals make scientific discoveries; the scientific community determines which discoveries are valid -- unless or until it determines that another discovery is more plausible. And the point is still the same: unless you are yourself a scientist with the training and experience necessary to challenge the accepted wisdom, it is irrational to challenge the accepted wisdom.
Your point is still in error. We can verify through experiment that plate tectonics exists and operates. In 1912 Alfred Wegener proposed the initial hypothesis central to plate tectonics science. He was far, far outside the consensus of geophysicists. They rejected his hypothesis. It took nearly 50 years for the battle between the drifters and the fixists to peter out. For the longest period during that time, Wegener was deemed wrong. The reality is that the social consensus was wrong and Wegener's hypothesis was correct. Scientific reality exists apart from the social consensus held by scientists.
What you tried to pull in your comment was akin to this maneuver:
Person A: I'm right.
Person B: You're wrong.
Person A: I'm right.
Person B: You're wrong.
Person A: I'm right.
Person B: You're wrong.
Person A: I'm wrong.
Person B: You're right.
Person A: Thanks for admitting that I was right.
Person B: Huh?
You can't just declare that I finally see your point when a.) I never conceded your point and b.) when you start referencing post-facto conditionals, such as " unless or until it determines that another discovery is more plausible" (which is a red herring that didn't help your argument at all.) You do have balls of steel for trying that gambit though. Quite bold and funny.
And for the most part, people only do this with respect to global warming
Yeah, there are no groups opposed to genetically modified food organisms, there are no groups opposed to food irradiation, there are no groups opposed to fluoridation of water, there are no groups opposed to civilian nuclear power generation, there are no groups opposed to drilling in ANWR, there are no groups who oppose the study of intelligence as it intersects race, there are no groups opposed to vaccines, there are no groups opposed to western medicine, there are no groups opposed to finding the cause of homosexuality, there are no groups opposed to
cloning:
. . . Unlike the U.S., which is afflicted by divisiveness and the religious right, Canada is a model country. That was his story, at any rate.
A few hours later I picked up a newspaper and got a different view. On the op-ed page a scientist was pleading for Canada to repeal its law against cloning human embryos for research. In tolerant, open-minded, diverse and creative Canada therapeutic cloning--defined as creating an in vitro embryo with the same chromosomes as any other individual--is a crime punishable by ten years in prison.
In the divisive, religiously addled U.S. a similar measure has failed repeatedly to become federal law. (Some states ban therapeutic cloning.)
U.S. scientists and their supporters tend to assume biomedical research is threatened by know-nothings on religious crusades. But as the Canadian law illustrates, the long-term threat to genetic research comes less from the religious right than from the secular left. Canada's law forbids all sorts of genetic manipulations, many of them currently theoretical. It's a crime, for instance, to alter inheritable genes.
And the law has provisions the fabled religious right never even talks about. It's a crime to pay a surrogate mother or to make or accept payment for arranging a surrogate. It's a crime to pay egg or sperm donors anything more than "receipted expenses," like taxi fares. Since eggs are used not just in fertility treatments but in research, this prohibition stifles both.