>
These folks STILL want the ESSENCE of a shared respect and excitement...But when these same folks see a glimpse of collective curiosity...they long for the days of opacity and "mature handling of scientific consensus".
You are claiming that it's the same group of people holding incongruous viewpoints.
My point was that this is likely an illusion caused by the communication medium, i.e. "these people" represent a myriad of individual viewpoints, which may not align because I think "A" and you think "B". Not because I think "A" and "B".
To frame it in this way doesn't allow for a useful exploration of the issue. It casts aside an entire group instead of examining the roots of the problematic behavior. It also creates a straw man - the person who believes both things incongruously, when this person doesn't seem likely to exist, or at least seems likely that this is a rare stance.
> Saying, "You can't please these people about this" is essentially the same as saying "Their attitude about this is not useful"
These are saying very different things. One discards the entire person on the basis of a view you disagree with. This is a road to nowhere. The other allows an examination of the actual behavior, which is arguably far more important if there's a case to be made that someone should change their behavior.
"Oh, you're one of those people" gets you nowhere. "The problem with this line of thinking/attitude is that it limits the potential for public excitement and involvement with the process..." gives you and the person who disagree something to work with.
This isn't about being polite. This is about choosing whether the point is to explore the nature of the problem, or to complain about a group of people.