Questioning orthodoxy is pro-science (IMHO anyway) as any true scientist will constantly test and refine existing theories, especially where theory and observation are slightly at odds. Much like climate science, if your model predicts warming over 20 years, and you do not observe warming during that time, you should probably refine your model. If your model predicts that you'll see nothing older than 13by, and you see something older than 13by, then you need to revisit the model (or you have an Outside Context Problem).
In Joerg's case, I value that they are questioning current theories. What's missing is any kind of counter-proposal which fits that data that they are disputing. It's easy claiming that Theory A is wrong, but good science is being able to propose Theory B which fits the observations better.
Where's "Theory B" Joerg? Where is the masterfully crafted theory that explains all these things which you find lacking in the current orthodoxy?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
