I don't know how to interpret that. Here's a general rule you can use to figure out my thoughts about most things scientific:dougettinger wrote:So I am asking whether you, in the deep reaches of your mind, differ with any parts of the nebula theory.
If the subject is an area of my primary expertise (e.g. meteoritics, orbital dynamics) I'm likely to have an opinion derived from a synthesis of my own work and that of others.
If the subject is an area of my secondary expertise, which generally means I do no original work, but extensively read expert papers, I am likely to have an opinion based on my analysis of other people's work. Your "nebular theory" question falls into this category. I have little doubt that accretion discs are at the heart of planetary system formation. Beyond that, I read different ideas (only mainstream; as this is not my area of expertise, I don't waste my time on fringe ideas) and weigh them as best I can. My opinions are likely to shift around as I read different papers. I do not attempt to develop any ideas of my own.
For scientific areas that I am only casually interested in, I almost always favor the consensus viewpoint. There is value in trusting the experts. The stronger the consensus, the more I accept the theory. When there is little consensus, I prefer to keep an open mind. Again, however, I don't try to formulate my own theories.
