“I love SCIENCE!” types don't get how important are general and specific fashions. Here we have a superstar topic, an asteroid killing dinosaurs. It would be f

“I love SCIENCE!” types don't get how important are general and specific fashions. Here we have a superstar topic, an asteroid killing dinosaurs. It would be fine if it was simply famous, but many consider it One True Measure for everything to align with. So when people present some old or some new data, and say that they are sufficiently confident that their methods are precise and well-adjusted enough to show that X happened before the impact, or that Y happened long after the impact, they are simply dismissed, or told to invent a better explanation that respects the impact as a source of creation of everything, or told that something might be wrong with the method (which effectively means their whole field has been producing nonsensical garbage all along). Moreover, after a decade or two there comes a generation that naively believes that it's their duty to defend the holy principles, and shame the heretics. And then there's internet know-it-alls shouting something about Occam's razor. One would think that years-long volcanic winter would be disastrous no matter which season it happened. However, the desire to touch the superstar yourself could lead to risky behavior.