"accepted mechanisms of scrutiny and peer review" have produced very little value in physics for 50+ years. We've picked all the low hanging fruit we can reach with that epistemic framework. We should probably expect future developments to happen elsewhere.

I can't find any unicorns at the market if I check to see if the horn is real, but if I don't check, lots of people will sell me unicorns.

I like you, wyager. Marry me.

Yeah, I think cosmology has very slowly walked into a swamp with ΛCDM. And it's having enormous trouble backing out of the swamp, even though the James Webb Space Telescope is screaming at them that they need to. But ΛCDM is now baked into every simulation, and is assumed up front by pretty much every paper in the field. So they're in a very difficult situation. New ideas, and change, will have to come, initially, from outside the field. Which will liberate a lot of very brilliant people who are trapped in the old paradigm.

>have produced very little value in physics for 50+ years

I guess the entire field of solid state physics and materials science doesn't exist?

In relation to cosmology, that's mostly correct?

Solid state/matsci is 90% driven by corpo/DoD R&D, not academic "accepted mechanisms of scrutiny and peer review"

I get so much value out of this site in all sorts of important fields (to my career, or to my interest) where I am playing catch-up. But every couple of months a thread pop up in a field I am closer to state of the art, giving me a helpful reminder about the Gell Mann Amnesia Effect. I am sure others with variety of "Before Hacker" backgrounds experience the same in their own fields.