This was going to be a youtube comment. lol

I think a lot of arguments for how valuable the systematic knowledge process that science provides ignore many factors. Addressing the role of tradition for example leads people to think that only people with PhD's or even college degrees at the first level can make badass scientific discoveries. The truth is that anybody can make a scientific discovery, but acknowledgment of that discovery is poo-pooed because of the discoverer's rank in society (tradition) or their job title. It boils down to this. If a rich person who has title at major university makes a discovery don't you think they'll have it vetted and spread a lot quicker (and with proper acknowledgement) than someone who is not affiliated with a university and is working a 9-5 that barely makes ends meet? Should it be no surprise that traditional beliefs impact how science is done? Its never mentioned though. It is almost as if science is a pure thing, in which case I'd hold the contrary view. Science is not pure, and it by itself does not safeguard against the pitfalls of traditional modes of discovery/insight. Thats just one facet of the pitfalls of traditional modes of doing science. You have the pitfalls of careerism, the egos of people who have higher "scientific" positions (which certainly is a part of careerism), the inability of science to solve unknown,unknowns (things you don't know, you don't know, how does one form a hypothesis if you don't know anything? lol)