You can't smear virology because of HIV. Then again, NIH speaks directly to Koch's. See here: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Understanding/howHIVCauses

You can't smear virology because of HIV. Then again, NIH speaks directly to Koch's. See here: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Understanding/howHIVCausesAIDS/Pages/HIVcausesAIDS.aspx http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Understanding/howHIV... You can't smear protein folding because of a modern method of study. Are you arguing that you think it's possible that proteins don't fold or that some specific example of a protein might be folded differently than certain simulation experiments postulate? You can't smear the fossil record because people put feathers on different species all the time. Fossils exist and organisms existed which created them. There is science in each area. testable, repeatable, falsifiable. In theoretical physics, the argument is far more salient. There is a wack wing doing something that's not science (per the 3 tests definition) and that wing is trying to argue that the 3 tests shouldn't apply so they can continue to get funding. Most physics in and/or past high school will gladly tell you that the Bohr model for atoms is a klunky model that gets the uninitiated into grasping a modestly functional model. Stringnuts seem to be raising their klunky model up and trying to say it gets to be a theory in a way which makes science and scientists (3 tests style) seem no better than charlatans and preachers. Part of me thinks this is because most of what seemed should be evident from ST is not panning out and they know that they are too far down a path. If ST gets funding cuts, their CVs atomize and blow away with the wind. They get to teach basic physics for kids meeting core requirements and polish mirrors in someone else's lab. When they are getting to close to the corner they backed themselves into, they try to argue that Bayesian analysis says it is highly unlikely that the corner exists.