Reductionism and Complacency
A lot of modern scientific thinking is based in reductionism, in the idea that complex phenomena can always be "reduced" or explained from known or assumed assumptions.
But some results in the foundation of Mathematics had shown that this approach had intrinsic limitations in the sense that any area of reality that we may try to model will always have "anomalies", or properties/phenomena that can not be reduced to any given preexisting set of assumptions or hyphotesis, in other words: the given model will always be incomplete, it will be unable to describe fully reality.
The so called theories of everything are just a dream that never will be reached.
But this reductionist mentality had lead to complacency and a generalized debunking mentality.
Known authorities in a given field frequently abuse their position to impose their views. The Lavoisier case of denying the reality of meteorities is a documented one showing how authority can be abused, but that obviously is not an issolated case.
This debunking mentality, i.e. complacency, assume that we can dismiss "anomalies" out of hand because these anomalies will have sooner or later an explanation, and by "anomalies" here I refer to any fact that appears to contradict stablished theories or paradigms.
That complacency is what lead Lavoisier to deny the reality of meteorites and that complacency is the one that had lead many to deny the reality of autonomous anomalous flying objects today.
It is a pathological/endemic attitude in academic circles and one that shows clearly how detached from reality can become the people that are supposedly to be more attuned to it.