If you are going to make a claim, be prepared to defend it. That’s just common sense. If you think the science is “settled” you’d better be ready to demonstrate it. If you think you have the best method for achieving a particular outcome, you’d do well to be ready to test your method against a challenger’s.
A winner and a loser differ in this respect. A winner has true scientific temperament. Scientific temperament refers to one’s proclivity to observe nature and arrive at conclusions rather than persevering with dogma. A loser will never entertain the notion of a more refined version of truth. A winner will always be.
You have nothing to lose by opening yourself up to challenge. If your method fails, you just learned something new. Something stronger, something better. If it didn’t, you’re vindicated. At least for the day. Until another challenger comes along.
There’s nothing wormier than crying prejudice or bias when your belief system is challenged. Anyone who is unprepared to defend their claim will often resort to name-calling, or moral grandstanding. As though the act of grandstanding vindicates them. In their mind (and only there) they win by not presenting a proof but by “demonstrating” how the challenger is just immoral for having challenged them.
The modern world is full of champions of science, politic, morality and subject-based expertise who’d come together to denounce a challenger. They would go as far as their unhinged power would let them. So far, in fact, as to incarcerate or inflict physical and social wounds to the challenger. Not the challenger’s ideas, mind you. Just the person.
If you find yourself in the unfortunate position of having to defend a moral, an idea, a belief or a “settled science” that does not stand the onslaught of opposing ideas, beliefs and demonstrations, then your strength of character is demonstrated in conceding rather than doubling down and grandstanding.
To your character,
