but this does not mean that science is not adversarial. It is not just
the media which likes to portray science as so many arguments.
Some science may be consensus driven, but this is like saying cricket
is, because the players understand the conditions for one team to win.
The clearest illustration of this is the example of Stephen Hawking and
Kip Thorne, who make wagers on disputed theories.
Good science is not done by mavericks or conformists, but by those who
collate and present evidence in a way which would withstand a hostile
counsel and convince a sceptical jury.
Scientists who do not consider their case as if it was being reviewed
critically always produce bad science, as in the Pons and Fleischmann
"cold fusion" case.Reuse content