| I disagree. Because: https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/marchapril-2008/out... https://www.medicaldaily.com/mad-scientist-6-scientists-who-... https://bigthink.com/articles/a-brief-history-of-outsider-sc... And much longer: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-revolutions/ Nowadays there are other means of doing 'citizen science', enabled by more, cheaper, and faster mobility, similar for access to information, and new technologies like LIDAR, drones, and much more. In turn enabling the discovery of patterns which do not fit into the common wisdom. What is so hard about understanding that? Edit: Also 'institutional blindness', or if that's not a thing in english, the german 'Betriebsblind(heit)', meaning to be blind to things, because too far out to be recognizable, diverging too much from the established ways of doing things, and so on... |
The only modern example from your second link is a case where a doctor performed a very interesting experiment to demonstrate their thesis, it successfully changed the expert consensus, and he was awarded the highest possible prize from the academic community two decades later. Not exactly a "ivory tower academics conspire to hold knowledge back" situation. The sole thing that makes this story so interesting is that he conducted the experiment on himself.
The first link is asking for amateurs to work with academics. Again, extremely different than "academia holding back progress." Academia is explicitly supporting outsider ideas in this case!
The third link is five paragraphs long and again does not discuss anything remotely modern. There's whole books about the history of science! Even specifically about scientific revolutions! And they tend to be written, gasp, by academics (that's who writes the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy)!
Absolutely none of this is meaningful evidence that the academic community is behaving in an unacceptable way to Hancock.