it seems to me, that in the end, a reasonable plurality of views exists ... recognizing that it is somewhat compartmentalized.
reminds me of a British news stand, one can pretty much read whatever they want to hear.
but, I will have to dispute your first statement:
"folks who support hypotheses are rarely overjoyed with the company of folks who pick them apart."
plenty of folks support hypothesis but ONLY find joy in them when accompanied by those who unabashedly pick them apart. hypothesis in a vacuum is some sort of one hand clapping thing in an abandoned woods (to me). and there are plenty who seem to enjoy some rigor and enjoy the process of dissection.
your notion of staging is sensible ... that the "hypothesisers" may desire a quiet space is fine and dandy ... there is a word(s) for it, variably: "think tank" "brain storm" and so on, but in a functional formal sense it is with intention for later vetting.
folks vary with regards to when they will accept vetting. some prefer very near term vetting, the costs of failure of delayed vetting being too great, others are rattled by vetting and prefer to more fully formulate their hypothesis prior to the percieved crisis of vetting. and then their are those of faith. their vetting is the rare event undertaken only to claim vetted status, where their participation in the process is entirely disingenuous.
it seems, at least in this instance and in other venues with which I am familiar, that the disposition of the leader largely determines whether the process follows a functional one or a faithful one.
so there you have it.
I feel good, you?
| 