> ... I don't think kind words are called for when a scientist knowingly publishes claims that they don't have the expertise to evaluate for themselves.
But, until you can establish beyond all reasonable doubt that that is what happened, you should be polite because there is a chance you are the one who is wrong. Then, after you have established it beyond reasonable doubt, you should be polite because trying to destroy someone will only make them dig in and fight you til the bitter end. And, because it's the right thing to do.
You can be kind and tenacious, and forceful, and not take no for an answer. I think that's what the original commenter was implying.
> until you can establish beyond all reasonable doubt that that is what happened
In the case under discussion, the key scientist involved (Frederickson) admitted that she wasn't an expert in fluid dynamics. That is sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that yes, what I said happened is what happened.
> You can be kind and tenacious, and forceful, and not take no for an answer.
I'm not sure that "kind" is consistent with all of those other things, in the situation under discussion. But maybe we have different interpretations of what is "kind".
But, until you can establish beyond all reasonable doubt that that is what happened, you should be polite because there is a chance you are the one who is wrong. Then, after you have established it beyond reasonable doubt, you should be polite because trying to destroy someone will only make them dig in and fight you til the bitter end. And, because it's the right thing to do.
You can be kind and tenacious, and forceful, and not take no for an answer. I think that's what the original commenter was implying.