Contemporary scientific dogmas and the "excommunication" of heretics
Danilo Anton
In every historical moment there are conceptual and / or scientific models which are largely ideological support systems of the prevailing power. Governments and their political, academic and religious structures are based largely on those models.

However, models change as time passes. new data are obtained, other conceptual approaches are developed, and finally, the model change occurs. It is what Kuhn called the "paradigm shift". Generally, political, religious and academic authorities resist this change, but in the end, the accumulation of information and the dissemination of new ideas impose the replacement of old visions with new ones better adapted to the state of the society knowledge and feelings at that moment.
Although this process took place systematically throughout history, the elites of each period act as if their views were immutable, true dogmas.
This also happens in contemporary societies.
Human societies organize their knowledge through the symbolic systems of their cultures.
In every age there are dominant models that relate to social power structures and policies.
These models, which during long time had been religious and dogmatic, allowed social and economic control by the dominant political groups.
When the elites imposed a system of knowledge, they ensured political control and enjoyment of the economic and social privileges that ensued.
Modern history of dogmatism
The process of replacing European dogmatic religious systems began early in the "Middle Ages". Revolutionary minds were sheltered in the medieval "Universities" and urban centers ("boroughs" or "burgos") that developed through the demographic and commercial expansion of the ecumenical regions.
Discrepant with dogmas were declared "heretics.".  Some, like Giordano Bruno and Thomas More were executed for their beliefs that went against the principles and standards set by the political and religious castes. Others, like Nicolaus Copernicus or Galileo Galilei, were criticized bitterly, forced to recant, dismissed or persecuted for their ideas.
The new ideological systems put aside philosophical structures which were based on biblical, canonical and Greco-Roman influences.

With the triumph of the European industrialist revolution, new knowledge systems developed, leaving aside religious and dogmatic geocentric approaches.
The new economic and political structures engendered a system of knowledge based on a network of academic, corporate and government institutions.
Whatever is accepted by this "network" is defined as "official" knowledge and determine the projects that will be supported and articles or books that will be published.
According to the work of Thomas S. Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (expanded edition, 1970), the (official) "normal" scientific research cares little about search news of importance, both in the field of concepts in such phenomena. From what point it is to develop more precisely the accepted conceptual frames as well as obtain data "confirm" what is already known.
James Lovelock points out in his paper "The Ages of Gaia" (1988) that "...academic scientists may think they are free but in reality most of them "freedom of thought have changed for good working conditions, a regular income, a fee and A Hostel. They are also limited by an army of bureaucratic forces from funding agencies to health and safety organizations. Scientists are also limited by tribal rules of discipline they belong A physicist would have difficulties in chemistry and a biologist would find it almost impossible to do physically. To complete the above, in recent years the "purity" of science is more closely guarded by a self imposed inquisition called peers review"
Thomas S. Kuhn calls normal science or "paradigm"  the current scientific model or system.
The paradigm of normal science in Kuhn's vision is the set of theories, rules, procedures and knowledge that permeate a particular society at a particular time in its history. Today it applies to the scientific "model" widely adopted in the modern globalized society.

In this "globalized" official intellectual system, scientific construction works through the accumulation of scientific data that allows (supposedly) to develop more and better knowledge. However, what it does, is to achieve greater detail in the practical application of already accepted scientific models, but not to change it.
There is no method in this official paradigm (or in any other dominant paradigm) that would establish a new "whole model"  accepting other theories or applying other rules or procedures that may end up radically changing the recognized model.
The main difficulty of changing the official paradigm lies in the fact that a radical paradigm shift involves altering power relations.
Politically, the holders of paradigmatic power are those in decision-making positions. Economically, they are benefiting from its privileged position in the structure of knowledge. Academically, they defend the prestige and economic security that give academic and professional positions they occupy.
In short, the struggle for the preservation of the paradigm by its leading proponent is mainly and sosmetimes exclusively posed in terms of power.
Danilo Anton