Science

... there seems to be a proportional inversion between the perceived truth of well-reasoned postulates and the prevailing prejudices of those who have built their careers on an opposing viewpoint, when accumulating evidence supports the newer idea. The more vehemently the Old Guard dismisses the newer idea, the more likely it is to prove true.
Back in the sixties, I recall Emmanuel Vilikovsky (sp?) being vilified for his support of the hypothesis of plate tectonics, even as evidence steadily mounted validating it as provable theory.
Funny how that works. Even funnier is how the powers that be continue to repeat their errors in judgement, while expecting different results. In some circles, that's considered the definition of insanity.