It goes around and comes around, Martin. Sometimes the scientific establishment is right about something. Sometimes they are wrong about something. It is quite possible for a majority of scientists to back an invalid viewpoint which is later discredited, and it has happened numerous times. I think that is mainly because of human nature. One finds the same sort of stubbornness in any gathering of human beings, regardless of what are their qualifications. Once they've made their mind up about something, you challenge them at your peril. They may laugh at you. They may ostracize you. They may even threaten you. Or in extreme cases (seen in the fairly recent historical past) they may even torture you to force you to recant or they may kill you.

Why? Well, they're sure they're right! ;-) And when one is "right", then it's okay to find a means of silencing anyone who doesn't agree, right?

This is the essence of both peer pressure and conformity, and it occurs in every authoritative hierarchy that human beings have ever come up with, including the world of science.

Therefore I always keep in mind this possibility: a present scientific orthodoxy may be based on faulty premises.

Take, for example, the extraordinary media scare campaign we were all subject to regarding H1N1 flu last year. It turned out to be a tempest in a teapot...but it sure sold a lot of vaccine! Yessiree. Very profitable for certain people in the pharmaceutical community, wasn't it? I wouldn't call it a "conspiracy" though...I'd call it a brilliantly orchestrated advertising program that made someone a huge amount of money, and that fooled and made use of the people in the professional medical community in the process. The vaccine probably made more people sick than the flu did, which is what usually happens.