Avalongod:
You seem to be extremely focused on how scientists act in the short term. Scientists are human and are subject to the same foibles of every other human. I do not argue this, but I think you allow that to blind you to (or at least to minimize the importance of) the true strength of the scientific method.
To use your own anecdote, Dr Sobell’s results have been vindicated. In a relatively short span of time a new idea has taken root and gained scientific prestige. Why? Because science values reproducable results. Yes, scientists can be overly concerned with personal reputations, grant renewals, etc. The beauty of science is that in the long run those things matter less, much less, than good, reproducable results.
Linus Pauling was perhaps the most famous biologist alive when he proposed his structure of DNA. Watson & Crick were relative unknowns. But their model produced better, more reliable, more verifiably results.
You say science is not good at self-correcting. I say you are blinding yourself to the long-term truth by concentrating on the short-term consequences of human nature. In fact, I am not certain that I even would call the initial resistance that any new hypothesis must overcome a weakness. Some amount of conservatism is necessary to prevent resources from being wasted on untenable ideas. If the work is good, if the results are reproducable, then they will be able to stand the test.
You compare science to religion in dogmatism. Again, I suggest you pull back and examine a time scale longer than a few years. The Catholic Church was formalized as the Church of Rome in the 4h century. Compare the changes in church dogma to the changes in scientific knowledge over that period. Do you truly see them as similar? Pick another time scale: the Protestant Revolution, Islam, Mormonism? Science changes and adopts new ideas MUCH faster than religion.
Compare also the means in which science and religion resolve conflicting ideas. Religion schisms, declares heresies, divides communities an almost never achieves a reunification. Science argues, criticizes results, propoes alternative, and can get extremely ugly. But eventually one model/hypothesis/explanation will be perceived as superior. Why? Reproducable results on testable criteria.
The Big Bang, by which you seem so underwhelmed, is a good example of this. You insinuate that “what we may be having here is scientist coming up with a theory, then interpreting the evidence to fit the theory”. That is disingenuous for someone who claims to be well versed in the history of cosmological theories. The Big Bang was one proposed model, in competition with others, used to explain teh present state of the universe. It has, to date, accounted for observed phenomenon more successfully than competing models. Therefore, it is generally accepted as the best working model for cosmological origin. If a better model comes along, it too will be required to account for the evidence.
You also use the cold fusion “debacle” as supporting evidence for your attitude. I say, rather, that cold fusion is an excellent example of science working properly. A radical idea was proposed. It garnered great popular attention. A couple of scientists were immediately made famous. Other scientists doubted the results. Experiments were replicated – results were not. The new idea was determined to be incorrect. All of this in the space of less than a decade. Science worked. What would you have preferred: that science dismissed the idea immediately without ever testing the results or that science accepted the idea unquestioningly without testing the results?
