The only person throwing accusations around is you. This is a huge blanket blaming statement:
> 99% outsider science is extremely bad, and can't understand why it's bad even after repeated explanations
A challenge dealing with noise in a system is an opportunity for a solution, not a rationalization to censor people. That < .01% may be onto something big.
Part of my point was that the 1% with good ideas aren't actually getting censored. If you can find any recent examples to the contrary, please let me know.
Part of my point was that the 'accusation' you claimed against 1arity was that communities exclude outsiders. That you made rationalizations about why they might be excluding outsiders (because they are bad) serves to illustrate that the community might very well be practicing exclusion, and with good reason. I'm challenging the status quo here, and looking for an opportunity to allow quacks to be quacks while we're still 100% open to finding people with decent ideas. That may be implausible, but I'm still challenging it. :)
For whatever reason, this reminds me of the recent TED talk that got pulled because the speaker was challenging dogma in research. Can't remember the title off the top of my head.
If you're talking about Graham Hancock or Rupert Sheldrake, I'll stick with the dogma. I don't think you can talk to spirits or make telepathic contact with dogs.
Now I'm curious, how exactly did you come to believe that the scientific community is not welcoming to outsiders with good ideas?
> 99% outsider science is extremely bad, and can't understand why it's bad even after repeated explanations
A challenge dealing with noise in a system is an opportunity for a solution, not a rationalization to censor people. That < .01% may be onto something big.