I don’t think you’re saying anything here that longtime community members do not understand. Most here have discussed the basic human biases you’re describing ad nauseum. The pushback you’ve received is not because we do not understand the biases you’re describing. The pushback you’ve received is sourced in disagreements that scientists are doing the things that your analogies imply they are doing.
In this post you’re just reasserting the things that people have disagreed with you about. I recommend directly addressing the points that people have brought up rather than ignoring them and restating your analogies. A brief perusal of what people have commented on your posts seems to show remarkably little effort by you to address any particular feedback other than to hand wave it away.
This is particularly the case when most people’s priors are that the person disagreeing with the scientific establishment is the one who has a very strong burden of proof.
I realized I like this post because I identify with LessWrong, contrarianism, highlighting wrongness of high-status individuals, and a handful of other related concepts.
I find myself disliking Steiner, scoffing at institutions that give him position and those who give his book a good review.
All that despite barely being aware that Steiner exists and certainly never having read a thing he wrote.
Kinda scary.
I mean the criticisms might all be valid, but all I have to go on is the five minutes I spent reading this post.