And therein lies the problem - peer review.Morphix wrote:And when dissenters are mentioned it is always a carefully selected dissenter who "all" are agreed upon to be wrong. No review of qualified contemporary supporters of that dissenter's ideas. And of course, no question of whether what is taken to be evidence for whatever standard theory could possibly fit as well into another theory. Humans apparently can't help but create new religions, replete with dogma and priesthoods, and the evidence for that is overwhelming.
The way it seems to work is roughly as follows:
A conference hall full of these people all join together & say that "so & so is wrong, we can prove it is wrong" and when asked for that proof they reply "we are all agreed it is wrong". At one point, the consensus opinion was that Bruno was a heretic & burned alive because of the medieval equivalent of "peer review" said he was wrong.
That is not Scientific Method, it is mass bullying by consensus ganging up on what they think of as mavericks.
The reality is that it does not take 1,000 to agree for something to be true - it takes just one person to be right. Arp summed it up beautifully when he translated the oft-used rejoinder "this violates the laws of physics" to read as "In this golden epoch, we know everything there is to know".