Yes, it is natural to have suspicion and good to save careless steps.

Such thinking has led to the anti-vaxx movement during the Covid pandemic. This has caused needless pain, suffering and deaths. While scientific proof is required that should be verified IMO the degree implied in the statement is excessive and harmful. David Booth

Incapacitation by experts is always a danger as

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Illich

opined.

This is not a matter of suspicion, in my perception.

It refers to the profound knowledge of scientific methodology and its practical applications, with respect to the methodical reach of practices.

Successful practices in any field need many empirical testing steps.

They cannot be commanded by magisterial hierarchy or the like.

This requires an ethical culture of error management.

Although there has always been some differences in scientific perspectives, science in general remains vital to us and our society. Ideally, science is one of the most important channels of knowledge, and has a specific role, as well as a variety of functions for the benefit of our society: creating new knowledge, improving education, and increasing the quality of our lives. Science must respond to societal needs and global challenges.

https://en.unesco.org/themes/science-society

The COVID crisis has led many scientists to take up arms (or at least keyboards) to defend their enterprise—and to be sure, science needs defenders these days. But in their zeal to fight back against vaccine rejection and other forms of science denial, some scientists say things that just aren't true—and you can't build trust if the things you are saying are not trustworthy. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-you-say-science-is-right-youre-wrong/

Yes, science stays until disapproved by another science. It is an endless change in life.

But one must also have some doubt about Halton Arp's publications. See, e.g., this review: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v336/n6196/pdf/336287a0.pdf

Dear Robert Shour

I believe,

when I say I believe, then the suspicion has no room in one's life. Though uncertainties do exist, but we need to have belief in our own belief system which needs to be based on logic and conscience.

Thanks and regards

Gowhar Meraj

Yes being suspicious helps to to question the status quo and that may eventually yield new results and alternatives.

How can someone proclaiming the Earth to be FLAT be considered an expert?

1. There is always bias in every expert breath whether innocent or for personal gain.

2. There are valid experts who at some stage become hired guns hiring themselves to the side of a debate that pays them the most.

3. There are faith based experts fueled by ideals or politics without evidence, data or logical opinion on their side.

4. How, Who or When did each expert become an expert (team or self praise)?

There is a difference between suspicion and calling what is right wrong.

It is necessary to be suspicious of experts as well these days.

Yes, you can have suspicion when you is best scientific and the incapacitation by experts is always a danger .

Robert Shour : I can qualify this statement by Halton (Chip) Arp, as this statement reflects the frustration at his failure to make the Establishment take his life long passion with the peculiar galaxies and their anomalies seriously.

I can refer you to the the following project in my profile and also the following comment I made in another RG forum, respectively:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/QUASARS-RETROSPECT-PROSPECT-AND-AS-A-POINT-OF-DEPARTURE

Copy of comment: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_Big_Bang_theory_falsifiable

[As someone who have been a close friend and known Chip Arp for many years (until he became incapacitated with an incurable illness and passed away in December 28, 2013), I can narrate some definitive facts about the works and the views of this noble man and model scientist. He has 338 galaxies named after him and his “Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies” in a masterpiece that opened new vision of the cosmos! It is common knowledge that he was more or less kicked out of Palomar and found some refuse in the Max-Planck Institute at Garching, near Munich, where his astrophysicist wife was employed at that time. Even in the Max-Planck Institute, Chip told me (over a dinner at his home in 2008) that other people in the Institute would stay away from him, and he would only meet some of them while playing tennis!

The reason for this extreme treatment of Chip Arp and conscious effort to kill his legacy (more effectively than violent fate of the past heretics of cosmology, through just denial and ignoring him); is that his work threatened not only official cosmology since Isaac Newton, but also the present established order under world monopoly capitalism; because the theories of Newton and Einstein has more or less replaced theology as the ruling ideas!

I came in contact with Chip around 2000, when I started a project on a dialectical approach to natural science, particularly cosmology; inspired by the works of Frederick Engels on these issues. I tried to fit Chip Arp’s discovery of the quasars with discordant redshifts (but ejected from nearby galaxies with a trail of faint links with the mother galaxies); in a dialectical perspective of the evolution of the universe. Like you I rejected the “variable mass” cosmological model of Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar, that Chip subscribed to, at that time. This he later told me was to explain both the anomalous redshift and also to avoid the problem of enormous energy necessary for ejection at such high velocities. Narlikar and his associates came up with a solution of GR, assuming mass (m) of particles as variable, hence the peculiar idea of “baby mass” (with high redshift) of the ejected quasars; eventually growing to adult hood with low redshifts!

A vigorous e-mail exchange followed over our mutual strange ideas, my dialectics and Chip's “variable mass” idea. But eventually this great mind was convinced of my dialectical approach in explaining the quasars redshifts in particular and my dialectical views of the evolution of the universe in general, which is the exact opposite of the “Big Bang” theory. Chip, was the lead editor of the journal “Apeiron”, an organ where his anti “Big Bang” group and supporters used to publish their views and works. Chip helped me to publish the following two very controversial (even to his students and supports) articles in Apeiron:

“Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies”

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf

“The Cosmic Gamma-Ray Halo – New Imperative for a Dialectical Perspective of the Universe”

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO2PDF/V10N2MAL.pdf

In our Munich meeting at the end of 2008, Chip promised to write (somewhat of) a Foreword or an Introduction for my book “The dialectical Universe” which I presented to him in the form of a manuscript. But to my great misfortune Chip became incapacitated soon after our meeting; and before he had time to bless my book. It was later published and now distributed through Amazon.

https://www.amazon.ca/Dialectical-Universe-Some-Reflections-Cosmology/dp/9840414445

Chip’s incredibly rich and profound works and his discoveries of the quasars, form the fundamental basis of my dialectical view of an infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe. I unequivocally reject the so-called “Big Bang” theory as a single act of creation. I have published journal articles, proving scientifically, mathematically and philosophically that Newton’s and Einstein’s theories of extra-terrestrial gravitation have no basis in objective reality, and is the very reason for the continuing and centuries-long scholastic debates and why the Fairy Tales of Big/Dark/Black cosmic monsters adorn modern cosmology. I wish Chip Arp was alive today to see my recent publications, that conclusively vindicate his profound discoveries:

"The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology"

Article The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and I...

"KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas" :

Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

"QUASARS – RETROSPECT, PROSPECT AND A POINT of DEPARTURE" :

Article QUASARS – RETROSPECT, PROSPECT AND A POINT of DEPARTURE

I have commented on these issues extensively in RG forums and elsewhere. I see that someone unknown to me has posted a collage of my views in the internet, that roughly (but not exactly) reflects my views on the gravitational theories of Newton and Einstein:

"Physics cooked up in ones brain":

https://www.muzsik.org/