1. Scientists are often hostile to new ideas because they have an overwhelming body of evidence supporting the prevailing theories.
2. New ideas must reproduce all the successes of the prevailing theory, explain a phenomenon more successfully than the current theory can, and make novel predictions that can be tested in order to gain traction.
3. Many “new ideas” are unoriginal repackagings of old, discredited ideas that don’t merit reconsideration.
The article is generally reliable and trustworthy as it provides a balanced view on why scientists are so hostile to new ideas. It acknowledges that there is an overwhelming body of evidence supporting the prevailing theories and explains why new ideas must meet certain criteria in order to gain traction. The article also points out that many “new ideas” are unoriginal repackagings of old, discredited ideas that don’t merit reconsideration.
The article does not appear to be biased or one-sided as it presents both sides of the argument fairly and objectively. It does not make any unsupported claims or present partiality towards either side. The article also does not appear to contain any promotional content or missing points of consideration.
The only potential issue with the article is that it does not explore counterarguments in depth or present both sides equally, which could lead readers to form an incomplete understanding of the topic at hand. Additionally, while it mentions some risks associated with new ideas, such as failing to reproduce all successes of the prevailing theory, it does not provide any evidence for these claims or explore them further.