Clicked return on my last post just as your latest appeared - it seems to echo what I wrote there (or intended to write, anyway). The bottom line seems to be that judgements of “true” and “false” tend to be made, in the end, on the same human basis that they always were, but with a different dataset. Looks a good read, but a high price!
The only omission I noticed from his list, perhaps legitimately as it is a slightly different phenomenon, is the tendency for “specific domains” in science, or in any other academic pursuit, to develop their own internal culture which becomes blind to alternatives - and sometimes over-critical of them.
To take a science-neutral example, the methodologies of nineteenth century biblical studies were developed for over a century, and their conclusions assumed in further research even when younger scholars questioned the validity of the methods. They seemed (and in some cases still seem) impervious to other disciplines like history or archaeology, whose practitioners were regarded with some suspicion by those within the discipline.
Astrology is another case in point: in that case it was a science that remained mainstream from Babylon in 2500 BC right through to Galileo himself, and beyond, in astronomy. Exactly when the shift came to regarding it as a pseudoscience I’m not sure, but the reason for it seems to be the philosophy of materialism that began to influence the “guild” of astronomers in a new direction. By Newton’s time, action at a distance was considered “woo.” And then he proposed gravity!
Research to debunk astrology followed in the wake of that change, rather than bringing it about. And it certainly wasn’t carried out by astronomers, who knew already that it was “out” - or at least, of no interest to them now they had telecopes.