In the long run it isn't.
As the common understanding changes, so does scientific opinion. Good science depends upon common understanding of repeatable measurements and calculations. Therefore it appeals to large groups of people. Over time it tends to appeal to everybody, because it depends upon common agreement about what is seen. That is its strength. At the heart if it is common access to laboratory information, calculations and reasoning along with people willing to look at and attempt to reproduce results.
What about new developments? They tend to be controversial at first until they have achieved either common acceptance or rejection. This can take a long time, or it can progress quickly.
Often new developments are overlooked and forgotten. One person writes up a paper and does some experiments, but they lack the notoriety to inspire interest or cannot find anyone with the expertise to check their work.
What about state supported research? This is a weakness. When the government is behind something it can cause problems. Sometimes politics interferes with science.
What about industry? Industry has its share of corrupt research.
What about Church sponsored work? Its mostly useless. Churches have long been antagonists and underminers of science. Their comments do not inspire interest. Churches are primarily interested in keeping science from affecting themselves, so they do not really participate in the process. They like everything to continue unchanging.
What about Universities with their hugely wasteful micro-economies? They are nothing new. Back in the days of Isaac Newton the universities were approximately just as corrupt, favoring wealthy students. The only difference today is the scale. Science has an advantage, because it actually can result in products that the universities can patent. It also results in usable bachelor's degrees, so to a large degree it is insulated from a lot of the problems caused by university bloat. That's how I see that.
As the common understanding changes, so does scientific opinion. Good science depends upon common understanding of repeatable measurements and calculations. Therefore it appeals to large groups of people. Over time it tends to appeal to everybody, because it depends upon common agreement about what is seen. That is its strength. At the heart if it is common access to laboratory information, calculations and reasoning along with people willing to look at and attempt to reproduce results.
What about new developments? They tend to be controversial at first until they have achieved either common acceptance or rejection. This can take a long time, or it can progress quickly.
Often new developments are overlooked and forgotten. One person writes up a paper and does some experiments, but they lack the notoriety to inspire interest or cannot find anyone with the expertise to check their work.
What about state supported research? This is a weakness. When the government is behind something it can cause problems. Sometimes politics interferes with science.
What about industry? Industry has its share of corrupt research.
What about Church sponsored work? Its mostly useless. Churches have long been antagonists and underminers of science. Their comments do not inspire interest. Churches are primarily interested in keeping science from affecting themselves, so they do not really participate in the process. They like everything to continue unchanging.
What about Universities with their hugely wasteful micro-economies? They are nothing new. Back in the days of Isaac Newton the universities were approximately just as corrupt, favoring wealthy students. The only difference today is the scale. Science has an advantage, because it actually can result in products that the universities can patent. It also results in usable bachelor's degrees, so to a large degree it is insulated from a lot of the problems caused by university bloat. That's how I see that.