[AlbertCory]

Wrong. Dead wrong. That's judging people's ideas by how pleasant they sound, rather than what they say.

When you say "evaluate every idea" you ignore the fact that that's what a scientist does: he or she should be trained enough to know when, "Oh, that's interesting!" or "Yeah, I guess I can ignore that." is the right answer. Their judgement of which is which is a good way to evaluate them.

[p_j_w]

Nowhere in there did I say people are judging based on how pleasant an idea sounds. Try again.

[AlbertCory]

You said, "As a matter of practicality, one has to put poorly communicated ideas or those for which the data collection is sloppy or otherwise badly done lower on their priority list."

"poorly communicated" is perfectly well characterized by "how pleasant [it] sounds"

You try again. Maybe you don't like the characterization but it's fair.

[p_j_w]

>"poorly communicated" is perfectly well characterized by "how pleasant [it] sounds"

No, it absolutely is not. You should read what people write, not what you read into it to confirm whatever view you took ahead of time.

[AlbertCory]

.. and you should say what you actually mean, instead of using corporate euphemisms like "poorly communicated," which can mean anything in the world.

Including, "I don't like that person."

And stop assuming you know anything about my world view.