This scientist debate reminds me of when I commented on a vid presentation by a Neuroeconomist about "self-control". I commented how the base idea of "self-control" presented via the experiments shown were initially flawed. Some other commenter insisted that those experiments shown were not the actual experiments just there for demonstration purposes and what the actual experiments were aren't relevant to the vid itself. Which, if so, is just so much of a waste of time and misinformation to the public about what they actually did to get their conclusions. It was the actual basis for nearly everything the vid was about. Of course the actual data is relevant! Nonetheless they tried to defend the vid so much, even decrying a summation of the actual experiments in lieu of dramatizing some made up script of theirs.

So yeah I totally get the whole "defending scientists" thing DrCrowTStarwars is talking about. Maybe it doesn't get that extreme but it is there.