I have found quite a lot of problems with certain theories or conclusions. But many scientists claim them to be true.

In reality, with some deeper research, the scientists are often not so sure about the theories at all.

Yet, it is often not even possible to criticize the theories or conclusions. The people involved start attacking me using all kinds of logical fallacies. And if I show that I actually understand the matter, they just try to ban me from the discussion.

Like I am very against the way astronomers use Magneto Hydro Dynamics. It breaks too much with actual observable physics. If you look at the EM-dynamics in a different way, everything becomes simpler. But somehow it is forbidden to change a theory that is being promoted by so many, even when it clearly does not work well. (Most promote it as magic).

Other people might have similar experiences with asking people about climate, or whether the immune system is weakened by vaccines. It seems that almost every interesting question is taboo.

While if I discuss similar problems with programmers, they are often very open in discussions. And they are often eager to find problems with the information systems that they have build. I only find similar reactions with PhDs that try to promote their theories. Discussions about OOP versus functional can become heated, but very often people can give examples and somehow understand each side.

For some reason many scientists are really much more aggressive and deconstructive. Does anyone know or understand why this is?