Apologists

[Esquilax]

That's not true, is it? Because up until some "fact" gets replaced with something more.. 'Factier' 'science' more over the scientist makes all sorts of efforts to maintain his pet hypothesis' validity.

Don't look no way but that is a form of appologetics

Somebody doesn't know what peer review is.

But hey, let's ignore the obvious point that you have not, even a little, provided evidence of scientists attempting to maintain their hypotheses where there was not sufficient justification to do so: all you're saying that that scientists tend to accept the things that they believe to be true, up until the point that additional evidence shows that not to be the case, upon which time they admit that they are wrong and move on.

Which, I mean... yeah. What else would you want to happen?

The appreciable difference, which you didn't seem to get in your rush to equivocate, is that when a scientist defends their hypothesis, that comes as a result of much testing and review that justifies the original findings. The scientist is never defending their views from criticism, they're simply saying additional true things according to their testing of the evidence, which just so happen to align with what they already hypothesized, and you've already acknowledged that in those cases where the testing does not align thus, they admit they were wrong.

By contrast, there are no tests in apologetics, mostly because there is no evidence in apologetics, and the majority of apologetic arguments are configured so as to be unfalsifiable. This is another one of those things where you try to equate two things so you can smugly have your "gotcha!" moment, while profoundly misunderstanding the original objection in doing so; if you want to widen the scope of the definition of apologetics to "any defense of a topic," then you're no longer talking about the thing we're objecting to, and your argument loses validity. The double standard can only be present if you're still discussing the original topic, after all.

Are you ever embarrassed that every argument you make only demonstrates that you didn't know what you were talking about before you opened your big, insipid trap?