> the critics often lack field-specific skills and technical expertise > (in "diagnostic criteria") Lack of track record of field-specific skills and sufficien

> the critics often lack field-specific skills and technical expertise > (in "diagnostic criteria") Lack of track record of field-specific skills and sufficient field-specific technical expertise So it's a closed club: "You're not one of us, so you're not allowed to criticize us" > (in "diagnostic criteria") Argumentum ad populum: claiming, without evidence, that most scientists disagree or believe the work is harmful Almost everyone on both sides seems to do this. Claiming that there's a "scientific consensus" usually only means that contrary views are refused by the leading journals. Real consensus only emerges over years or decades. The big bang theory only became consensus when all the other theories had failed.