SCIENTISTS did not declare heresy and refuse to accept change... they said a scholarly "dang it all" and then incorporated the new and better information into their "databases" along with a cautionary rule to remind themselves and their successors that mistakes will happen, so don't get too wedded to your assumptions.

Not entirely. If you're interested in the in-fighting between different schools of thought in the area of ecological science (in which "paradigm shift" is more of the tidal wave of acceptance of a new idea that washes the old beliefs and believers aside) you might want to read Donald Worster's Nature's Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas. In the nineteenth and twentieth century some of the participants were not very happy when their ideas were set aside.

This is the area where I've done most of my study, and while philosophers and philosophies can be in vogue or not, science is not so optional. Some of the early scientists who refused to accept proven theories became obsolete quickly. They still made important contributions as far as they went - when something is proven wrong that can be as big a deal as when something is proven right. The long view of history shows us where their flawed ideas were critical to inducing others prove them wrong, which is a good thing, but tough on the ego at the time it happens.

SRS