Exactly, instead of spending time dismissing the EMDrive as impossible; time should be spent devising experiments that prove it ineffective.

Modern science seems to be rapidly encroaching on religious territory: observable evidence is less important than what historical figures have said.

There have always been the recalcitrant "that's how it's always been done around here" types that often push back even when confronted with evidence. Take, for example, Ignaz Semmelweis[1] - he had the evidence that it works but he couldn't explain how washing hands could decrease mortality in hospitals. Few people took him seriously, he suffered a nervous breakdown and died. Afterwards it took Pasteur and Lister to get people to actually accept the theory.

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

I do understand that it is a recurring theme. This belief approach to science can be scientifically proven to be a bad idea (given evidence such as yours).

While every chance should be made to further explore our current assumptions (such as with the LHC), we shouldn't be neglecting low hanging fruit that challenges our ideas (such as the EMDrive). If as much as 1% of the money that is being spent on LHC went to "anomalous science" we'd likely have a conclusive answer on whether the EMDrive doesn't work. Science is tool that disproves, and we've been hacking it into a proofing tool for far too long. It's time to go back to basics and figure out more about what we don't know.

> McCulloch’s theory makes two testable predictions.

Think about the cost of either of those experiments - vanishing in the face of other science that is being performed today. If science wants to see the EMDrive go away, and is certain that it doesn't work, a comparatively small grant is all that it takes.

We need Antinobel prize for disproving stuff.

A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. -- Max Planck

Science has always had devout, religious elements, don't think otherwise. Look at the backpack the Theory of Evolution received from respected scientists and how much hand-waving dismissal there was of Relativity.

It has been argued that the only way science progresses is when the obstacles to science die of old age.

This seems like a misconception to me. Scientists have always tried to apply their energies toward the most promising lines of research. The supply of research capacity is finite.

Can you provide links to alternate timelines that proof your heuristics effective? ;)