Dr. Michio Kaku on the jumping debate:

Both sides, of course, have merit . Each side is merely addressing
different aspects of a difficult problem. However, taken to extremes, this
debate sometimes degenerates into a battle between what I call bellig-
erent science versus know-nothing science.

Belligerent science clubs the opposition with a heavy, rigid view of
science that alienates rather than persuades. Belligerent science seeks
to win points in a debate, rather than win over the audience. Instead of
appealing to the finer instincts of the lay audience by presenting itself
as the defender of enlightened reason and sound experiment , it comes
off as a new Spanish Inquisition. Belligerent science is science with a
chip on its shoulder . Its scientists accuse the holists of being soft-headed,
of getting their physics confused, of throwing pseudoscientific gibberish
to cover their ignorance. Thus belligerent science may be winning the
individual battles, but is ultimately losing the war. In every one-on-one
skirmish, belligerent science may trounce the opposition by parading
out mountains of data and learned Ph.D.s. However, in the long run,
arrogance and conceit may eventually backfire by alienating the very
audience that it is trying to persuade.

Know-nothing science goes to the opposite extreme, rejecting exper-
iment and embracing whatever faddish philosophy happens to come
along. Know-nothing science sees unpleasant facts as mere details, and
the overall philosophy as everything. If the facts do not seem to fi t the
philosophy, then obviously something is wrong with the facts. Know-
nothing science comes in with a preformed agenda, based on personal
fulfillment rather than objective observation, and tries to fi t in the sci-
ence as an afterthought .
From his book Hyperspace.