Yes, scientists can be hostile to new ideas. So should you

Novel physics claims frequently appear with sweeping headlines that challenge major scientific ideas. Such proposals often gain brief attention but then fade because they rarely outperform established theories. Scientists are not inherently dogmatic; prevailing models are supported by extensive experimental and observational evidence. Common failure modes include being obviously inconsistent with well-tested data, failing to provide a mechanism that fits known physics, offering explanations that do not generate new, testable predictions, and relying on speculation rather than quantitative agreement. When new ideas cannot match the accuracy and predictive success of current frameworks, they resemble sandbox play rather than serious scientific progress, leading to professional dismissal and obscurity.

"Every so often, a novel headline will fly across the world, claiming to revolutionize one or more of our most deeply held scientific ideas. The declarations are always sweeping and revolutionary, and include gems like: “The Big Bang never happened,” “This idea does away with dark matter and dark energy,” “Black holes aren't real,” and the perennially popular, “Maybe this difficult-to-explain astronomical phenomenon is due to aliens.”"

"Commonly, it's portrayed that scientists in such fields, like physics and astrophysics, are dogmatic, wedded to outdated ideas, and close-minded. This narrative is extremely popular among contrarian scientists or those who hold fringe beliefs for themselves, but it does not reflect the scientific truth. In reality, the evidence supporting the prevailing theories is overwhelming, and the new headline-grabbing proposals are typically no more compelling than the scientist's equivalent of playing in the sandbox."

"There are four big flaws that commonly occur with new ideas, and you should be aware of them all. Once you are, you'll understand why you're likely to never hear about most such ideas again after they're first put forth."

Read at Big Think