If only it were so simple.

One very large issue is the map versus territory presumption of mathematical models being explanatory, as opposed to descriptive.

For example, epicycles were a well developed and effective geometric model of our geocentric view of the cosmos. Given we are looking at the universe from our point of view, it provided a pervasive, consensus basis for modeling and describing the universe.

Though when it came to explaining this model, the crystalline spheres proposed were a lousy physical explanation.

Currently the math of General Relativity is very effective at describing stellar levels of gravity, though the galactic levels require dark matter and the proposed physical explanation, spacetime, is about as logical as proposing volumetemperature to explain ideal gas laws.

For one thing, time is not a physical dimension. The past is consumed by the present to inform and drive it. Causality and conservation of energy. Cause becomes effect.

Time is an effect of activity, like temperature, pressure, color and sound. Time is frequency, events are amplitude.

Yet when basic observations like this run up against the brick wall of consensus, there is no breaking ranks.

The current debate over the source of covid offers a much more immediate example of the conflict between the scientific establishment, versus actual inquiry.

What is a very interesting scientific experiment is watching the sociological process evolve and sort though all the possibilities, while the people express their own beliefs and biases, in support of the various factions and theories.

Scientists, as well as science journalists, are still people.