In an area of life which, in the broad sense, anyway, should be objective, based in replicable reality, egos seem to predominate.

The Mars life-water debate seems especially ridiculous to one on the outside. Every question will be answered with more information. all of us.

Given that, one would hope that people could float ideas around, each of which answered some part of the puzzle a little better than other ideas. More folks would ponder, pick and propose changes, modifications, and sooner or later a cohesive entire is built.

So the arguing will all, eventually for nought - so someone can say "I told you so!" No other purpose I can see for the advocacy which seems to trap.

Advocacy seems to function as it does in courts of law, the only thing that matters is being judged "correct". "I'm right - you're wrong" kind of science. And then other scientists feel attacked, and fight back, and the ideas become almost secondary - they're just the bent and battered weapons the egos use. The advocacy seems to almost prevent a good percentage of the interested parties from evolving easily, as their egos are attached to one idea, or the other.

Too bad it can't be a sharing of ideas, a dialogue, which had a chance of examining the various aspects of the whole and evolving into an answer.

Arf