The problem I see with those physicists is that they make many claims on the barest of evidence or they selectively choose the evidence and ignore other evidenc

The problem I see with those physicists is that they make many claims on the barest of evidence or they selectively choose the evidence and ignore other evidence that conflicts with their models. In addition, they seem to ignore Occam's Razor, but that may only be a perception of mine. Everyone does this in some form or fashion, but I see it happening with some aplomb in some of the sciences. These days, I treat any announcements of ground breaking levels put out by professional scientists with a large truck load of salt until they can provide very strong and reproducible evidence to support their conjectures. This is a pity since the scientific method has worked well over a number of centuries to increase our understanding of the universe around us. I have seen a reaction increasingly arise against science as the years have gone by. Most of this due to the non-science philosophies and beliefs being touted by those scientists as being "proven" by their "science". I used to believe in evolution but due to the experimental evidence being presented during the 70's and 80's, particularly in the various genetic experiments, I came to a quite different opinion. As the years and decades have gone by, the evidence is mounting that the evolutionary model as propagated today is nothing more than a religious dogma. Religious wars are an anathema to learning about the universe around us. YMMV on that one.