zlacker

Depends on which real scientists you are talking about.

I've worked with many "real scientists" who will consider possiblity unless they see conclusive evidence against it. On the frontiers, there is very little conclusive evidence; this is why they are the frontiers.

I have also met "real scientists" who actively dismiss conclusive evidence if it doesn't line up with what they think will get funded.

It doesn't seem the first flavor is the one you are talking about.

>>blix+(OP)
>I've worked with many "real scientists" who will consider possiblity unless they see conclusive evidence against it. On the frontiers, there is very little conclusive evidence; this is why they are the frontiers.

Oh sure, I consider the possibility that there might be aliens out there. However, we both know that this is very different than considering the possibility that Obama was a reptilian. In any case, scientific frontiers are areas of active research. So yeah, lets go spelunking!

>I have also met "real scientists" who actively dismiss conclusive evidence if it doesn't line up with what they think will get funded.

That is an all too common human flaw :)

>>passiv+m5
I'd argue there is more evidence for the lab leak theory than either aliens or reptilians; it's a tremendously low bar. There is not even flimsy circumstantial evidence for aliens, yet many people believe.

Yes knowingly abandoning the princinples of science in order to acquire money is quite the flaw. For whatever reason it is basically non-existent among grad students, but not uncommon among successful professors. It's almost like our institutions select for and reward this behavior.