in real time and slow motion.

We need to be careful to differentiate science vs. the scientific community, science vs. "what a 'scientist' does," and science vs. the products of science. Being involved in the scientific community or being appellated a "scientist" does not make the person really understand science. Some philosophies of education, some schools, and some teachers are a cause of this – – and should be helped (or indicted) in due measure. Science is the inductive, integrated understanding of the nature of a class of things and their cause-effect relationships. Being a good scientist is a matter of method, not of possessing a piece of paper or a pat on the back. I. There are many examples throughout history of “scientist” and the “scientific community" not being scientific (as well as many today), and less-than-optimal education and compromised philosophy of science play a role: -rejecting Aristarchus, Copernicus, Kepler, Bruno, Galileo on heliocentrism -rejecting Sprengel that bees pollinate plants -rejecting Berger that the EEG was a useful tool -rejecting Mayer on energy conservation -rejecting Semmelweis on the importance of washing hands -Etc. Ad Infinitum. When someone discovered more recently that Wolves are not all loners — ignored. When someone discovered more recently that Killer Whales live in pods and that some have different hunting habits and locations in the sea than others — ignored. When the scientific community "knew" that chimpanzees were cute little fruigivores aka (fruitivores) -- Jane Goodall got real and found that they ate lots of meat. II. Some detail and a start on further research A. Semmelweiss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis B. Berger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Berger C. Sprengel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Konrad_Sprengel D. Mayer http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/152.mf1i.spring02/MayerJoule.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_von_Mayer E. Ohm “When Ohm first published his work, this was not the case; critics reacted to his treatment of the subject with hostility. They called his work a ‘web of naked fancies’ and the Minister of Education proclaimed that ‘a professor who preached such heresies was unworthy to teach science.’ " From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm%27s_law#cite_note-12 F. Waterston Sir John William Lubbock said of Waterson’s ground-breaking research: “The paper is nothing but nonsense, unfit even for reading before the Society.” 1. “Another case was that of J J Waterston who submitted a paper on the kinetic theory of gases to the Royal Society in 1845 but had it rejected. Lord Rayleigh, in 1892, stated that: “ ‘... the memoir marks an immense advance in the direction of the now generally received theory. The omission to publish it at the time was a misfortune which probably retarded the development of the subject by ten or fifteen years. ... It is difficult to put oneself in imagination into the position of the reader of 1845, ... but it is startling to find a referee expressing the opinion that the paper is nothing but nonsense, unfit even for reading before the Society.’ “ From "Errors of the Royal Society" at https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Royal_Society_errors/ See also 2. http://revistas.unam.mx/index.php/req/article/download/65966/57889 3. https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/waterston-john-james III. The problem is still with us today: 1. "Science students learned the facts of their specific field without understanding how science should work in order to draw true conclusions." --David Epstein, Range: How Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World 2. "For their part, Casadevall and Bosch write that science education reform should result in scientists who are: (1) broadly interested, creative and self-directed, as were some scientists in the era of Louis Pasteur, Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, and Linus Pauling; (2) versed in epistemology, sound research conduct and error analysis, according to the "3R" norms of good scientific practice—rigor, responsibility and reproducibility; (3) skilled in reasoning using mathematical, statistical and programming methods and able to tackle logical fallacies." (from: https://hub.jhu.edu/2018/01/03/biomedical-science-education-reform-casadevall-bosch/) IV. And the problem of not reasoning well and assessing others well is found in other area of life, too. 1. “Rejections That Didn’t Matter” by Suzanne Sherman https://suzannesherman.com/out-of-the-round-file/ 2. Fred Astaire was rejected when first trying out for movies with the report “can’t act; slightly bald; can dance a little.” See: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/08/07/bald/ IV. Be informed. Be scientific. Follow good principles of reason: be inductive and cognitively integrated (i.e., connect, connect, connect all causally relevant detail and fact into the big picture).