Originally Posted by hueyhoolihan

it's best, when proposing something new and different to concentrate on a group of enthusiasts that have little to lose by agreeing to it. experts, whether self-described or agreed to by consensus, have a LOT to lose by agreeing with an idea or proposition that runs contrary to their experience. probably because, if valid, would make obsolete part of their knowledge base and demand a relearning that they are loath to do, or at least bring into question basic principles that have contributed to their knowledge and status.

a reading of the history of scientific advancements makes this very clear. the most strident invective is often reserved for those with an original thought or idea from those with the most prestigious positions in support of the status quo.