Scientists

Okay, a little controversal topic for you...
Throughout history, there have been "idiots", "bold fools" or simply "sharlatans" who laughed in the face of the scientific community and dared to step out of their offices and show their own, brand new theories and discoveries. For example, when the first modern sightings of the mountain gorillas ran in, scientist said that it's nonsense, and there is no way such beast could exist... But then, a brave team caught one, and those labcoat-wearing monkeys - pardon my word - had to admit being metaphorically beaten to a pulp by the undeniable force of the evidence.
Nowadays, scientists are the same. If a collegue of theirs starts to wander on the territory of "new science" like cryptozoology, or ufology they exponentially loose credit. Furthermore no matter what they find, it will be ridiculed, cast aside or even destroyed. That is an unfortunate fact. Why? Because no matter how high the one with the discovery is, there is always someone who is higher in rank/respect who's word is law, and who would not like to see his theories being re-written or removed from doctrine. Of course, there are occasionally the few who say "Screw that." and try to show what they have, but it is like one versus everyone else when it comes to the media - because only the story chasing papers or channels will listen to them, since the scientific world had already turned their backs on them.
To serve with a nowaday example, some dinosaur remains were found in a layer of rock that is far younger than the date of the great extinction. Several dozen million years younger, as the radio-carbon analisys showed. The palaentologist who found it took it to different labs, but they all said the same: it is in the correct layer of stone. When he showed it to the scientific world, the rest of the scientist only laughed at him, claiming all of the radio-carbon analisyses were wrong, and it must not be younger than 60 million years... It is a viscious circle. And this is only one territory of science. Fuel technology is the other one that is very problematic. But anyhow, the scientific world seems to like having new ideas and revolutionary discoveries concealed and hidden.
Your opinions one this?

Ahh this is a tough one. It's in human nature to resist change, to ridicule fear and loath the new. But it will take a restructuring of the basic way we think and act to break through this particular bit of idiocy.

I agree with Haven. Generally people are afraid of change, and don't like to be proved wrong.

It is a strange nature of theirs.
In Sweden, a lake-monster was amongst the law-defended creatures, it was prohibited to hunt and kill it. Due to a law made by those who were there in person, when they saw and caught a juvenile monster back in the old days. Not all that long ago, that law was deleted, due to scientist ridiculing - not proving anything in the meantime - the idea of having a lake monster defended by law...
I don't say that all legends are true, I merely say that we'd have a far better understanding if those "in power" would have a decent, open mind.

As a scientist myself...

Ridicule in the scientific community of anything counter-intuitive (and honestly, a lot of these things are) is not only common; it's necessary. If it didn't exist, I could claim to have gone back in time in a dream, dropped some LSD into the big bang, and created life, and no one would question it. It is absolutely necessary in science to always back up everything you do with evidence for that reason; for all any of us knows, you're making it up on the spot.

To be fair, I think the same way most scientists do about cryptozoologists, about String Theorists, *because* I've not seen evidence to make me believe it. That's the entire reason behind such reaction, while "resisting change" factors in very, very little.

And I agree with Baphijmm. Science does not simply reject outlandish ideas because it goes against status quo - or rather it shouldn't. In order for a theory to be accepted as plausible it has to have some sort of evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. In order for scientists to believe there are gorrillas in the mountains, those who claim to say they are there need something to back up thier statement (finding a gorrilla is nice evidence.) Scientitsts can only go with the most plausible explanation at the time - even if it is wrong.

For example: as a biologist, I am well aware of the implausibility of dragons. Yet, I also know that scientific plausibility is not entirely necessary when one comes to thinking about thier existence. While there is no [direct] physical evidence, there is some circumstantial evidence. To the scientific community, dragons exist as a focus of the mind's instinctual fears of certain animals. However, the definition of a dragon is quite diverse, and as such one can only say what they know isn't or wasn't, rather than what was.

Contrary to poular belief, scientists like having a new can of unknowns thrown at them. Challenging current knowledge is what drives progress!

Baphijmm, Shimdra, that really does make sense to me. I'm glad you've shared your opinions, now I can rethink mine

There was evidence of that radio-carbon examination, yet again scientist discarded the idea of believing what they _saw_with_their_own_eyes.
There are many cryptozoologist, or other scientists who were exiled from the scientific world because they turned to other "new" branches of science - the rason why they were let down is unknown by me. That, and there is evidence that the Australian government will do quite much to deny the existence of big cats on the continent - they would go as far as doing fake analysis of the evidence that would proove their existance. (namely, excrement was brought to a laboratory which was thought to be from a big cat, they said it was a dog's, there were several samples brought to them, and they said to all that they were from dogs - they even said that the sample from the cage of a big cat from the zoo was from a dog as well. It's either their lack of responsibility and carelessness or they were told to forge an untrue result.)