Christine, the last thing I want to do is to get involved in a debate about cocaine mummies.
But if I were you, I would be skeptical about anyone who maintains that the only reason his or her theory/discovery is not generally accepted is because it is opposed/suppressed/slandered by a "tightly controlled" -- and controlling -- Conservative Establishment (Academe, Official Medicine,you name it), out of disreputable motives.
Every charlatan and half-baked scientist in the world uses this argument. The fact is that their theories are rejected simply because their proofs aren't rigorous enough to satisfy their peers.
Occasionally, of course, theories are rejected -- at first -- simply because accepting them would mean accepting an entirely new "paradigm", i.e., radically revising our entire view of a subject or field. But that is true in a very small minority of cases.
BTW, I hold no particular brief for "academics" in general. But I think it preposterous to say that they reject bold new theories simply because they are "intellectual cowards, afraid of jeopardizing their tenure." It is very difficult to lose tenure, once you have it. You might lose it for reasons of character -- i.e., if you have been seducing all your female grad students -- but not for supporting someone else's theories. It is sort of like being President.
Joan
|
