A position commonly found in public discussions, is that any new idea that is enough different, or even in opposition, to an established theory, would be morally “better”. But practically all such new ideas of laymen are really just simply nonsense. It is like claiming, for example, that my new “alternative Mars rocket made out from wood” would be better than a Saturn V, and going on at length about how the “establishment” would “oppress” my great idea. This appears as obvious nonsense to almost everybody, except perhaps to small kids and some desert tribes. As for alternatives to fundamental theories, the situation is analogous but unfortunately not as easily recognized by most.
An answer of a well-known critic of string theory:By the way, as a kid I used to launch wood and cardboard model rockets and they went higher than metal ones. Wood’s a good material. Provide some calculation to prove it’s definitely better to use metal for rockets! Wooden rockets were used for a long time before metal ones. The latest technology in engineering and maths is not the best just because its the newest. That’s just as much a logical fallacy as ad hominem arguments.
That's way too funny! :-)
