TLDR: some theories proposed by people are initially largely ignored or disputed by the main body of scientists working on the topic. As time progresses and evidence mounts (and the old guard retires) these theories can end up finding a following and be incorporated into the corpus. Conclusion: science isn't always fair to individuals but the method does mostly ensure correct ideas end up being accepted while non-factual theories are shunned, or given the amount of attention the evidence warrants. New ideas proposed by Laura: ???
I really liked how Laura approached the issue of "silencing" Pseudoscience and how its a matter of interest, not the validity of your peers. I wish you guys explored the more deeply topic of "silencing" with what happened between those who wrote the IIT and those who retorted that this "warning" has affected their chances to obtain funding or be taken seriously by those who control funding. How are those who are silenced supposed to deal with people whose definition of "progress" seems like pointing at other people and saying that "my scientific diligence (not their theory), says your approach is a waste of our time, and we should not take it seriously as a community". Was Anil Seth right in saying that we should not tell people what to think in this kind of open letters? If anything the response Zoom call the pro-IIT people had, was just a bunch of pluralist throwing their theories at each other, but no clear-cut path forward to defend themselves against this canceling of their science was taken.
