One of the greatest qualities of those men and women, brilliant and courageous, is undoubtedly their great independence of spirit, in comparison with their contemporaries, which allows them to question the dogma and develop theories that are more in line with the new observations.
Whereas the Orthodox, instead of questioning the theories of the at best, they try to fit the facts into the dogmas with a personal interpretation.
They also entrust themselves to their god of chance, and in the in the future, they will surely get an explanation that, of course, will come into play.
The current established framework (sleep in peace, we are watching!)
At worst, frightened by implications that outweigh them, they:
And thanks to the courage and tenacity of great discoverers against the "scientific masses" (the non-discoverers, some teachers and others reluctant to change...) a few openings were recognized in the end, to be imposed in turn as new dogma.
From time to time, scientists would be interested in re-reading the history of science to remind us that, in all ages, many Improbable theories of yesterday became truths of tomorrow.
Indeed, the same ones who boast of cold objectivity, the champions of rationality, they quickly become radical inquisitors, and when they fall short of arguments, they handle insult and contempt.
As for those who would dare to take an interest in these strange phenomena, they will be said of them that they have "lost their compass."
Heretics are anathema, they are excommunicated, failing to be burned, they are punished "university-wise", they are denied the direction of doctorates, receive grants, work in laboratories and the reading committees of the Major scientific journals muzzle them by preventing them from publishing.
These tricks, which are opposed to scientific ethics, are not always the result of dishonesty, because many times what is at stake can inhibit to the brightest spirits, and an embarrassing conclusion may falsify the study of a phenomenon; Besides,
"if you make a mistake, you look foolish,"
then prudence, even ignorance...
One is more attached to one's fame than to one's respect for the truth.
It's easier for scientists to ignore the annoying tests and stick to the established line, instead of building a new exception-based model.
Most scientists prefer to ignore the phenomena they pose problem.
So, the empty chair policy leaves the door wide open charlatans, delighted to be able to take advantage of the credulity of the curious people interested in the so-called "unusual" phenomena.
However, wouldn't it be the true vocation of scientists, of a constant openness of mind, to state hypotheses deduced from the rational study of the facts?... with minimal mental reservations (Those who would pretend not to have them are liars).
When they don't, they have no idea how to investigate such discoveries they deny the evidence of the facts and reject some fields of they are innovators, only because they threaten to break their sacrosanct dogmas.
