On Tuesday, 11 November 2014 08:45:25 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes he was quite cutting edge for his day. There was a scientist on the
radio only the other day saying that if you went against the trend in most
sciences, it was far harder to get your papers published due to what he
termed, orthodoxy bias.

I don;t believe that, but what is more difficult is that if you are going against the grains as it were, you'd obviousdluy find it harder to be peer reviewed by people that agree with you.
As an example if you were to come up with proof that a giant spaghetti monster lived on the moon you might find it difficult getting enough people to read your evidence. I'n not sure how many have reviewed david ickes theories that certain people are really lizards in human skin.

Thee was one recently where scientists thought they'd recorded something travleing faster than the speed of light.
They didn't believe it themseleves either so asked for help in proving themseleves wrong or rather show them where the errors were.