>>3212
>for something game-changing, like the non-existence of ionic bonding, nobody would publish you and all of the so-called "experts" would dismiss you immediately as a crackpot
Naive undergrad detected.
If you found out that ionic bonds don't exist (how you would do that I don't know, since they clearly exist), and you actually did the experiments to prove it and didn't just make a timecube-tier website, nobody's gonna call you a crackpot. Even if like you say there was some vast conspiracy, you could simply not publish it, and instead build some invention that is only possible if they don't exist. Since it's so game changing, surely there's gotta be a new trick you can come up with using the new information, right?
It's really the same basic principle of disregarding non-experts. You would ask a computer scientist what's the best algorithm to do X, and you would ask a doctor what to do about your foot infection. You wouldn't go to a computer scientist and ask about the infection, that's retarded, it's not his specialty. For whatever reason, there's now a bunch of assholes in academia who think they get to decide what society should be like. Since they don't have any special qualifications to decide that, nobody should take them seriously, but the masses still perpetuate this retarded meme of "scientists are super smart and always know what's right, even if it's outside their expertise", so they believe them. It all started with autistic physicists suddenly deciding they know better than everyone that God doesn't exist, and wanting to teach philosophy and theology to actual philosopher and theologians (note that many famous physicists in 50s and before, even though they knew way more physics than a typical freshman today, had no problem believing God exists, and those that didn't believe it were fine with people who did). Atheists latched on to it because they were desperate from some official recognition, and that gave rise to the idea that scientists should be authorities on everything, even things outside their scientific area.
There's only a few select cups of koolaid that you have to drink in science, or at least not balk at when others offer it: Mostly realities of modern politics like anti-racism, feminism, gun control, climate change and a few other big liberal issues. It's a survival strategy more than anything: Science is publicly funded, and the public is largely in favor of these things, so you can't have the scientific establishment saying the public is a bunch of idiots and then coming back and asking them for money. It'll trigger massive protests and defunding of science, and there's already too little funding.
But all of these things you're not allowed to say are very predictable: You can skim the front page of MSNBC for things they say are bad, and you'll easily get a complete list of scientist kool aid flavors. Outside of these, nobody cares if you want to challenge dogma, on the contrary people love it because it's exciting and fun (unless you turn out to be some nonsensical retard in which case everyone will be yelling "your paper is shit and our journal club wants their 30 minutes back!"). Even on the social dogma, while a lot of scientists actually believe it, and there's even a few people who aren't even scientists, but they're allowed to roleplay as scientists because they are hardcore liberals and it looks good to support hardcore liberals, but there's also tons of scientists who realize it's bullshit. I would say at least a third and maybe up to two thirds of scientists realize modern liberalism is retarded (they may still be against things like racism, but they certainly won't support shit like BLM) but they cynically pretend otherwise because they don't want to deal with constant problems finding a job. You'll never hear them say it, because they're not stupid and realize that if word gets out they're in trouble, so unless you are really close friends and they trust you or they have nothing to lose anyway (eg. retired tenured professor) they will never admit it.
>The distinction between social science and hard science is totally meaningless.
Not at all. In social science it's considered acceptable to inject your liberalism into all the scientific material you write. In the hard sciences, you're expected to focus on the facts and save politics for your personal blog. It helps that in the hard sciences, facts rarely challenge liberal dogma (again, it's very important not to challenge it because you might lose your job or your funding).