In reply to alexm198:
Seriously off topic now, but I couldn't resist...
> No it's not, see Kuhn's paradigm shifts, or Lakatos' research program model, for example.
Ironically Kuhn's model was itself controversial, Karl Popper was one prominent, and severe, critic. The opposing view, and my own, is that true paradigm shifts are rare, and the dominant force that moves science forward are frequent, and smaller, revisions. I think this is especially true in the internet age where information, and misinformation, can be shared almost instantaneously across the globe.
> You make a fair point about many of those who challenge orthodoxy being wrong and thus forgotten (Lamarck, for example), but I think the point stp is making is that the fact that this Taubes chap is unpopular with the mainstream isn't a good enough reason in itself to discredit his research.
Indeed, but 'extraordinary claims...' etc.