There is a misconception that mainstream science is resistant to any new ideas which may contradict its current thinking, but nothing could be further from the truth. Science is not dogma; it’s ever-evolving as new evidence is presented and evaluated. Scientists receive greater funding, attention and accolades for bringing forth fresh ideas that challenge the status quo, yet strict criteria must be met in this pursuit.

One part of this criteria is to have your work peer-reviewed. This is a process where other scientists (peers) evaluate the quality of other scientists’ work. In most cases, this is performed as a ‘double-blind’ review. This means evaluators do not know the author(s), and the author(s) do not know the identity of the evaluators. The intention behind this system is to ensure evaluation is not biased. 

It’s a rigorous process, which can ruthlessly identify any flaws in the work and rejections are common. I witnessed this up close when a colleague of mine submitted a new test method to an industry-standard publication whilst working in the field of petrochemicals. It was a full two years and several revisions before his proposed new method was included in their publication (including a black and white photo of his hand!). 

The peer review process is just one part of a robust scientific method, but it’s a crucial piece of the puzzle.  

Mike H

The burden of proof fallacy can often be seen in paranormal or pseudoscience
claims.
One example of the burden of proof fallacy is someone who claims that ghosts
exist, doesn’t provide any evidence, and instead shifts the burden of proof to
the person questioning the claim. This is often directed at mainstream science
or persons requiring scientific evidence. ‘Prove that ghosts don’t exist!’. I was
once told.
The burden of proof should sit with the person making an extraordinary claim
(that ghosts exist) which is outside our current understanding of the laws of
physics. Otherwise, we can claim the existence of just about anything without
having a single shred of evidence, and then throw the burden of proof back to
the person questioning the claim. ‘The eight-eyed, flying shit blob monster does
exist I tell ya, prove it doesn’t!’.

Mike H

A key part of the scientific method is the ability to meet the requirements of
repeatability and reproducibility. Alongside peer reviews, they are essential in
providing proof of a claim’s authenticity to the larger community. This allows
for any bias (conscious or unconscious) to be effectively constrained in the
pursuit of a true finding.   
1/ Repeatability – Can the same team obtain the same result using the same
method, under the same operating conditions, using the same equipment?
Repeatability is also essential in determining the accuracy of your measuring
tools
2/ Reproducibility – Can a different team perform the same experiment or study
and obtain an acceptable degree of agreement with the result whilst using
different equipment in a different location? An experiment is reproducible if it
can replicate the results anywhere and by anyone who accurately follows the
method.

Mike H

Confirmation bias is something we tend to fall into without noticing. This is a
cognitive bias that describes our tendency to cherry-pick, recall, and interpret
information confirming our existing ideas, views, and values. We can be
especially guilty of this if the evidence presented, could disprove a long-
standing belief and one to which we are emotionally attached to.

Mike H