Yes I understand how scientists work
Forgive me if I don't just take your word for it, but I need more proof that you understand how scientists work than just your say so.
You see they compete for funding
Yes they do, that's a good thing.
so they don't actually care what the other person is doing or if it is right or wrong.
You can't make a blanket statment like that. A microbiologist might not care what a game theorist or a psychologist is researching, but he could care a great deal what a virologist or another microbiologist is doing as their research might have an impact on what the microbiologist studying. They would also care whether it was right or wrong for the very same reason.
They just want to discredit them so they can get that persons funding
Research grants, endowments, and other forms of funding don't work that way. In fact none of them do. Just because Scientist B discredits the work of Scientist A does not mean that Scientist B gets scientist A's funding. It simply doesn't work like that. Scientific research would not be able to function in such a system, there would be widespread doctoring of resaults, no double blind studies, and no one would be willing to subject their research to peer review.
This is different to what Richard Dawkins tries to suggest is the norm
Thats because Richard Dawkins, being a scientist, has a better idea of how scientific reaserch works than you do. A fact that was proven when you made up a strawman to attack rather than describe the research grant as it actually is.
He suggests that scientists are more than happy to be proven wrong.
And in fact, many are and others are indifferent to the matter.
There may be some who are but mostly they will fight tooth and nail over it not calmly walk up to the other person and say thankyou
No one expects anyone else to thank them for it. And while some, hardly most, will argue they're theory's merits in the face of conflicting evidence, but if that theory has been proven to be wrong then it's kind of a moot point.
