A challenge to orthodoxy tends to be ignored at first. But if it gains popular support, the first move is to discredit and silence the challenger.

“Belief” is the crux of the matter. No amount of evidence will change the consensus view until a sufficient number “convert” to a belief in the new theory.

“It gets worse. As the evidence accumulates, the two camps will not only fail to reach consensus but actually be driven further apart - propelled by their different views ..And worst of all, there is no prospect of such a consensus unless the two sides can agree about the cause of the data.” Such a conclusion bodes ill for any attempt to change the status quo.

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the new ideas from the beginning.”

Applicable to both science and religion, I reckon.

Nice clip, TN.

And encouraging.

There is also suggestion that bullying is alive and well among the scientific community.
Humans can reduce even science to a series of soapies.

Some minds really are better off left closed. There is enough hate and hostility in the world already. There are also minds that should be encouraged but the hostility makes them afraid.

Obscurantists feel themselves uneasy in digital world and that is way to be for now on.

Clarke`s First Law:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Asimov's corollary to Clarke's First Law:

When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion -- the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right.

When I was in college my archaeology professor had a grudge against National Geographic for those same reasons... and also they tend to really dumb down the articles before printing, removing much of the actual science behind the topic.