[aruanan]

Perhaps, as many religious people say, God exists and wanted it this way--case closed. For many scientists, who try to avoid supernatural explanations, the accumulation of mysteries merely signals that the time is right for a breakthrough.

Ha ha. The false dichotomy. One breakthrough has already happened. It's just that too many have too much vested interests to protect to acknowledge Halton Arp and others' observations of quasars that serves up a dead Big Bang complete with little X's over its eyes. And this matter of vested interest is not a small consideration. In my own field, I know of someone whose very solid work is regularly slammed. Once at a conference some other scientist threw something across the room and stalked out. At another, a guy yelled at him, saying that he was messing with people's lives, with their careers. Ooh, I guess we can't have a better or more complete understanding of nicotinic acid receptors do anything like upset someone else's comfy career based on an incomplete understanding. That just wouldn't be nice.

[ovrtaxt]

It's just that too many have too much vested interests to protect

Aw, man, your depiction of scientists as self interested, paycheck guarding mercenaries has really blown my perfect, shining, disattached, PBS style image of these people.

You mean to tell me that some scientists actually have AGENDAS they wish to advance? Not just pure observation? Not just emotionless facts, the cold, hard Truth?

He's very disappointed.

[RightWingAtheist]

It's just that too many have too much vested interests to protect to acknowledge Halton Arp and others' observations of quasars that serves up a dead Big Bang complete with little X's over its eyes.

It's more likely that their theories just aren't good enough to withstand scrutiny, and that they fail to account for all of the overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang which has accumulated over the years.

One of my main research areas is the rhetoric of science, and I often find myself in conflict with my peers, who believe in a "hegemony" of scientific elites deciding what counts as science and what doesn't. I prefer to focus on science as a cognitive process (my other main interest is cognitive rhetoric), which means taking into account the individual's practice of science, and not just the institutional and social dimensions. If the consensus in the scientific community is that a (scientific) theory is wrong, than the reason is probably because the theory IS wrong.

In my own field, I know of someone whose very solid work is regularly slammed

What is your field of work? I also noticed on your page that you live in Chicago; you wouldn't happen to knwo any of the scientists discussed in this article, would you?