[enasterosophes]

I don't think it's accurate to compare it a theocratic phenomenon. Ask any physicist, they will say that science requires checking our theories against the evidence and changing our theories as new evidence comes to light. It's not like they issue scriptures to all grad students about what you must believe.

In practice, science requires balancing multiple criteria. Does a model have the right level of simplicity and complexity? Can I convince my peers that it's correct? Should I trust the results of a crank over the results of someone who has a long history of excellent work, and how much onus is there on my me and my research group to reproduce every single published result?

Keep in mind, no one expects to be responsible for a revolution, so you get an effect similar to "poll herding" -- it is desirable to have a consensus, and as consensus emerges around a theory for how to describe some new observations, you get people going along with it even if they maintain personal reservations. In fact, it has been clear to many physicists that dark energy is just an ad hoc explanation, and there has been serious contention about what better model could exist, and there have been several competing models. But every model had its flaws. It's possible that the timescape model will also have flaws that cause it to be re-evaluated.

I recommend a book called "What is this thing called science?" by Chalmers [1]. When I was an undergrad it gave me a more nuanced understanding of the Philosophy of Science.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_This_Thing_Called_Scie...