I think this article (“Ernst Florenz Friedrich Chladni (1756-1827) and the Origins of Modern Meteorite Research") makes my point about scientists not always adhering to science: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1996M&PS...31..545M. Ersby, who posted the above link, disagrees, but consider some of its findings:
Chladni "wrote when he finished his book he hesitated to publish it because of the hostile reactions to be expected . . . most savants of the Age of Enlightenment came to regard the very idea of objects from the sky as flouting both common sense and the laws of physics. An origin outside the atmosphere was not even to be considered." (p. 551)
"At about 9:30 P.M. on 1790 July 24, a brilliant fireball with a long, luminous trail was seen for nearly 50 seconds over a large area of southern France. An enormous explosion heralded the fall of stones over several villages in the vicinity of Barbotan and Agen. Excited stories circulated widely and Pierre Berthelon (1741-1799), editor of the Journal des Sciences utiles in Montpelier, published reports of the event. Word of his accounts reached his friend, Jean F.B. Saint-Amans (1748-1831), who said later that he sought to match this absurdity with an authentic act by demanding an official testimonial to the event. Much to his surprise, Saint-Amans received a notarized deposition in short order, signed by a mayor and his deputy, stating that at least 300 citizens had witnessed the fall. Seeing the deposition as nothing but new proof of the credulity of country people, Saint-Amans induced Berthelon (1791:228) to write: 'How sad, is it not, to see a whole municipality attempt to certify the truth of folk tales . . . the philosophical reader will draw his own conclusions regarding this document, which attests to an apparently false fact, a physically impossible phenomena.'" (p. 555)
Domenico Tata, Professor of Physics and Mathematics at Naples, "was convinced of the authenticity of this (June 1794 Siena meteorite) fall, and said he had intended to publish a full description of it but was dissuaded by friends who warned him that he would be ridiculed by 'Savants' and, worse yet, by 'Half-Savants who are the more to be feared." (p. 560)
"But Chladni did write his book. Possessing no positive evidence for falling stones and irons, he had proposed his radical hypotheses at a time when they ran counter to the accepted laws of physics and when witnesses to actual falls were withholding their evidence for fear of ridicule." (p. 585)
Now, Ersby points out that Chladni did in fact write his book, that not all scientists of that era were so close-minded about meteorites, and that only a few -- not all -- museums threw out their collections of meteorites. However, looking at the big picture, I don't think that's the way science is supposed to work. Does anyone disagree?
