I don't understand what you mean here. You agreed (I think) that people face ridicule for not believing mainstream science.
I did not :)
I specifically said (or meant to say) that people face ridicule when they propose ideas that go against mainstream science with no evidence or proof, or with a hypothesis that has no supporting evidence or predictive powers.
In that way, when their science holds, the new thing is accepted despite the controversy.
If their science holds and is testable, fasifiable, predictive and reliably provable by others, there IS no controversy.
Their questions, doubts, etc, would always be encouraged. But this is not always the case, and the person criticizing doesn't always know anything more than the person questioning.
True. For instance, recently evidence that suggest the moon (of earth) was volcanically active recently (in geological timescales) was discovered on the FAR side of the moon. Bill Nye was on Fox News talking about it and one of the anchors suggested that might be related to global warming. Bill very politely told him the two were unrelated but he seemed unconvinced. He knew so little he wasn't even wrong (the Fox guy). He might as well have suggested that goldfish size in fishbowls affect the price of barrels of oil.
Just because you put forward an idea doesn't mean it is worthy of a response. It IS, however, sometimes worthy of ridicule. Bill Nye is a better man than I (but not a better poet, he doesn't even know it).
Questions ARE encourage. Intelligent questions. There IS such a thing as a dumb question :)
The kids are dragging me to toys R us to spend their money.
Better you than me, my friend. I am sitting in a bar in Austin drinking beer :)