Amish communities?
The discussion is *absolutely* necessary. Because we should expect better from our lot. For the impatient "tl;dr", Chu ends with the words "He [Elliot] needed to grow up. We all do." Some of us need to talk it out in order reach that maturity. I, for one, feel that if we are intelligent enough to parse knowledge incomprehensible to that majority of non-technical human masses, we should be intelligent enough to understand that some things, like the way you think about and treat others, are just NOT FUCKING COOL!
One side won, the other defeated. But it did not feel settled until someone admitted defeat. Someone has to go on record saying its dead, Jim.
This is utter B/S! What's with this black/white way of looking at things? By this line of reasoning, Copernicus was a hack for being too obsessed with the Sun. Galileo failed for not anticipating Newton. Newton failed for not anticipating Einstein. Einstein is a looser for being unable to handle QM. And we're all Dumbasses for not knowing the answer to every question ever asked. Seriously?
Whatever the case may be, BICEP should be acknowledged for taking a gutsy and ingenious shot at a daunting question. The approach is laudable and should be appreciated as modern, cutting-edge scientific research at its best: the meticulousness and dedication of working out of the South Pole, the engineering effort that went into such precise equipment design, the camaraderie and team spirit mustered among all the professional collaborators.
People who are eager to smear the project are doing a great disservice to science literacy by perpetuating low-brow stereotypical notion of what scientific research is about in this day and age. It is unsettling that the tendency toward sensationalism has somehow become a legitimate way of thinking and talking about these things. We're all becoming brain-dead National Inquirerers. This is shameful for a modern civilized society.
Hold on there, Nellie. Aren't we being just a bit quick to point fingers? It is entirely appropriate to stand your ground if it is firmly rooted in solid evidence and good reason. Let the data be subjected to scrutiny and defend itself to the extent possible. More likely than not, it isn't as conclusive or accurate as some may hope, but it doesn't automatically make it bad science. Whatever short-coming is uncovered this time around is another stepping stone toward getting it right. No one is wrong simply because you or anyone else arbitrarily say so.
Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.