At no point. That's how science works. Those who are opposed will bring up the best arguments available, even if those arguments aren't new. They'll get evaluated, rebuffed, accepted, etc. That's how it's supposed to work.
Many of the ideas you currently believe in were at some point rejected and ignored, frequently for decades and sometimes centuries. Bringing stuff up again, over and over, is a good thing.
If you are so thoroughly convinced that you are right, that is the surest evidence that you're doing it wrong. Always allow for the possibility that whatever you believe may be off and can be improved, even by ideas that aren't new.
> At no point. That's how science works. Those who are opposed will bring up the best arguments available, even if those arguments aren't new. They'll get evaluated, rebuffed, accepted, etc. That's how it's supposed to work.
No, this is not how Science works.
Repeating ad nauseaum the same debunked arguments is not how science works.
Or perhaps you think that is still valid to bring the Thomson atomic model today? Or the flogistum hypothesis?
The only thing those are doing is mudding the waters to stop the actions, nothing more.
At no point. That's how science works. Those who are opposed will bring up the best arguments available, even if those arguments aren't new. They'll get evaluated, rebuffed, accepted, etc. That's how it's supposed to work.
Many of the ideas you currently believe in were at some point rejected and ignored, frequently for decades and sometimes centuries. Bringing stuff up again, over and over, is a good thing.
If you are so thoroughly convinced that you are right, that is the surest evidence that you're doing it wrong. Always allow for the possibility that whatever you believe may be off and can be improved, even by ideas that aren't new.