"But various theories on the fundamental nature, definition, and classification on associations extend largely beyond the bounds of experiment and observation, and represent merely the abstract extrapolations of the ecologist's mind. They are not based on pure and rigid logic, and suffer from the vagaries and errors of human reason." -H.A. Gleason, The Individualistic Concepts of the Plant Assocation; pg. 9
It is usually assumed and perceived that science is a world of facts and "physical laws". When people are explained that something is "science", the usual reaction is to assume it as something feasible, and so it must be true. However, looking deep into the history of science itself, we find it has about as much "social" aspect influencing it nearly as much as the typical "political agenda" that consists of status and scandal among other things. What was once perceived as "common truth" among the populace has been proven false, making statements like "everything revolve around the Earth" a lot of rubbish. Unfortunately, as Gleason reasoned, some theories can't be deemed "logic" due to faulted human perception. This same reasoning had known names of the scientific community like "Thoreau" and "Freud" perceived as "crackpots". Those guys got off relatively lucky compared to the "unnamed" rejects who may have contributed greatly to the scientific community if their research was only accepted. When further considering the social aspect, scientific rivals may be bickering over their theories for more than just who's got right: they just might be arguing more so over who gets their name on that big shiny scientific textbook for their discovery.
So, it's a curiosity as to how much of this "social aspect" has easily dominated science throughout history, especially thanks to the "vagaries and errors" of the human mind. We've already seen this thanks to Christian Influence, and we've seen this through the public satire and rejection of certain Scientific Figures.
We've also seen this social aspect play out with Al Gore's personal movie, which itself had a "political aura". All this research in the hands of a politician, and it had to be fraught with visible political agendas. And apparently, some have refused to view it solely on the basis of this "political aura".
With this all mentioned, who knows how many helpful truths we've been denied because it wasn't "worthy" enough to be deemed "science"? And who knows what we know today as truth will suddenly be proved as a bunch of lies?
I've already mentioned before that reality has a bunch of crazy possibilities, and we've already seen how much science fiction has been transformed into authentic science. The problem is, we might have ran into some of these possibilities sooner had we been more open minded towards the seemingly insane.