Even though Einstein’s theory was mathematically intact, it wasn’t believed by his own peers. But later studies into his assertions independently proved his theories to be true and eventually became believed after they were verified over decades of additional research.
Back in the 1940s, according to mathematical theory, it was possible to achieve an air speed faster than that of sound, but many refused to believe it and considered all the disasters that occurred when trying to exceed that speed were due to ominous “gremlins”. Obviously, the theory was correct, nevertheless, and eventually was accepted after man’s previous inability to achieve Mach 1 was simply verified to be due to our prior limitations in technology and better use of current technology (thanks to Chuck Yeager).
Copernicus was vilified for presenting evidence that the Earth wasn’t the center of the universe. That didn’t detract from the fact that it wasn’t. And before Columbus crossed the Atlantic, no one could accept that the Earth wasn’t flat even though there was plenty of evidence that it wasn’t.
The list of facts denied is long because systems of belief are extremely difficult to shatter when they are proven to be wrong.
The efficacy of peer review in being able to identify fact-based science is alive and well regardless of the funding source. But peer review cannot mandate that humans believe the findings. That takes time to sink in, as it has in every example you cited.
> Almost every major discovery of the renaissance
> and industrial revolution was mocked and ridiculed
> by the scientific establishment, or the inventor
> squeezed into bankruptcy. Examples - Copernicus,
> Galileo, Tesla, Ford. and even Einstein. So much
> for the corporate-funded objectivity of peer
> review. Not saying it's all bad, but certainly
> not free of corruption and bias.
|Sighting Self-citing Scientists||1893||Dr. Troglodyte||21-Aug-19 14:14|
|Re: Sighting Self-citing Scientists||145||D-Archer||21-Aug-19 15:59|
|A New Drug||144||Lost_In_Place||22-Aug-19 08:55|
|Re: exaggerated||178||Lost_In_Place||22-Aug-19 20:42|
|Re: Sighting Self-citing Scientists||103||Nth||23-Sep-19 13:52|
|Re: Sighting Self-citing Scientists||109||Lost_In_Place||24-Sep-19 06:20|
|Re: Sighting Self-citing Scientists||152||Nth||29-Sep-19 17:30|