I do agree a lack of evidence does not make a thesis wrong. Everyone thought the discoverer of plate tectonics was wrong because he was unable to provide a prec

I do agree a lack of evidence does not make a thesis wrong. Everyone thought the discoverer of plate tectonics was wrong because he was unable to provide a precise mechanism for how the continents might move, despite an impressive array of fossil, biological, and other evidence. I don't think this theory of old masters and prodigies is completely debunked, but I thought Aaron's article brought up an excellent point about how the valuations were being made that I'd simply swallowed too easily. Aaron's submission was also the first thing I'd seen of anyone being critical at all, which was slightly startling in retrospect. I try to make a policy of not believing everything I hear and I failed this time. I suppose I was a little condescending though. I'm sorry.