> another argument is shot down, they have to move the goalposts and change the definition of what they actually wanted Actually, a version of that is good par

> another argument is shot down, they have to move the goalposts and change the definition of what they actually wanted Actually, a version of that is good part of the (scientific) game. Of course you have to criticize the theory, the experiments etc. Only, it has to be done in good faith - to look for the truth, not to defend a position. The difference between Newton and Bohr, and Freud and Marx (to go for classical examples), is subtle, not gross. There is an entire Science, a whole field, about that.