The people who visit this forum have a very wide range of expertise and I doubt that you can seriously expect anyone with scientific training and professional knowledge of areas of the research to simply swoon in a gushing worshiping heap at the persistence of TIGHAR. And I would also respectfully suggest that perhaps some of them had a fair battle to achieve what they have.
An admirable moving of the goalposts ("swoon in gushing worshiping") from what I actually said, with extra snark added to put the other guy on the defensive. Since my beef is not with people not being worshipful enough, but with people under the guise of superior knowledge/expertise making intellectually dishonest arguments (not just here, but anywhere), that is an admirable illustration of my point.
We're not here to worship. We're here to arrive at the truth, and to that end, it requires people all play by the same rules. Deal with ALL the facts...not just the ones we like. Critically think ourselves, not just the other guy. TIGHAR does that. That's what I like about their approach.
To address the metaphor properly (as opposed to the way you characterized it), I had many very accomplished and critically acclaimed musicians among my critics -- that's not the point. It's that I was criticized for
how I did something
that they decided they did not want to bother to do themselves -- something that, for all their musical expertise, they had no ground floor understanding of. Because they never left the armchair. They played a Bb major chord just fine, but they didn't know how to get a band in and out of Chicago without getting killed on tolls.
Put simply, the people who should make logistical and financial decisions are the people who are in full possession of all the facts and have money at risk. I find it tiresome when people who haven't undertaken those kinds of risks and dealt with the realities talk about how it should have been done differently. How they dealt with Discovery, where they should have searched, how money is raised, etc. I hear that, think of my own experience, and think, go rent your own darn boat and show us how to do it better.
Lest I seem too "worshipful" Dave Burrell has called the freckle jar dating into question and in so doing contributed some very useful information. Because he did some research and attacked the problem with an open mind. Did I scream "heretic?" No. Neither did anyone else. It's good stuff! I like it! We all do. He played by the rules and did the work. It adds to our
knowledge and to our understanding. That's what
science is for. Professional skeptics may think they're keeping everybody honest, but that only works if they are being honest themselves. If they're just picking at an argument to find a weak spot and ignoring their holes in their own, it really serves no useful purpose.
One final metaphor: some of the technically best musicians out there had consistently the crappiest bands. Because they never knew when NOT to play; they missed the big picture, which is the song. I have taken a lot of gigs away from guys like that.
