If you consider the case of Einstein and relativity, this theory was not easy to test when it first appeared, even though it ultimately proved to be correct. Say someone did not like Einstein and never wanted his theory to succeed. Could this have been made even more difficult by using politics to withhold resources? The answer is yes, since without proof there is no acceptability.
This is a complaint in favor of the scientific method, which you are partially demonstrating in your analysis, such as crime detection (forensics).
One thing that the scientific method lacks is accountability
The scientific method by definition
is accountability. All else is gloss.
when it comes to the critics or the caretakers of the status quo.
The phrase is emblematic of conspiracy theory
Whatever happened to those whom, it turned out, were not qualified to judge Relativity, but had the power to do so?
What turned out? Who are you referring to? Anyone is qualified to judge from a position of error, but are generally disqualified from sucking the bandwidth out of the useful conversation.
Absolutely nothing was done.
About what? Conspiracy theorists? What would you have done to them? What does this have to do with the scientific method anyway? (Strawman?)
There are no parallel rules for the caretakers of the traditions compared to the creators of new ideas.
Caretakers? Is this a Sunday School model, or an Old Folks Home model of the scientific method? Even if conspiracy or some political or economic influence exists, the Scientific Method is how we hedge against and correct such errors. You seem to be unfamiliar with it.
Why is that? This loophole in the scientific method is where corruption is possible.
By your definition, loopholes appear at will wherever they appeal to your personal opinion. This violates the scientific method. The standard definition of loopholes concerns amendable oversights in statutes. Would you propose to amend the scientific principle, to add a presumption of corruption? You would need to create a church of conspiracy theory to contain it, since no practical or reasonable person would subscribe to it.
Unwritten in the scientific method is, all new ideas are suspect unless proven, but all criticism is valid without proof.
No. All proven theorems remain proven until disproven. This is why geometry is so vital to the science curriculum. Do you denounce geometry as well?
If I was an expert in X and my theory was making me money and gaining me prestige, I may not want too many competitors. The scientific method gives me freedom to foot drag without accountability. I can say anything and there is no accountability. If I can poison the well and make resources harder this is good for me. There is no rule that says this is not allowed.
You mean you could publish false results (as has happened in the past), only to draw a plague of flies that will descend upon it and leave its bleached bones in the desert of nonsense? Sounds like a plan.
What you happen if we updated the scientific method to level the playing field. The creator still has to be prove himself just like in the current method, but now the critic has more accountability based on ultimate results. If the critic screws up for whatever reason he is demoted or sent to remediation. If we do that to the creator who is wrong, this is good for them.
Whatever you are referring to has no relevance to the method. For example, consider the syllogism: A=B, B=C, therefore A=C. How does what you're talking about even relate to this method of problem analysis, other than to substantiate its validity? Do you reject the doctrine of syllogism as a result of the drama you describe above?
This will never happen since this loop hole will never be plugged. The reason is science needs money and resources. Science is dependent and cannot provide for itself but needs business, government, etc. to give resources. These people may not be the sharpest tool in the science shed, but they have deep pockets and are good with that. Science needs to kiss ass and give them freedom in exchange for money. The unaccountable status quo follows in their wake.
You are talking about policy, which has nothing to do with the Scientific Method. None of this changes the definition of congruence, or why culture dishes must be sterilized before use, or any of a thousand details attended to in the simplest of scientific pursuits, all rolled up in a concise statement we call the Scientific Method. You appear to be railing against institutional corruption, another subject entirely, belonging to another thread, where it would need to be tested and substantiated.
I would exempt the providers of the resources. They can decide who plays since they bring the ball. But I would make all the science critics accountable and subject to remediation censor unless they follow the same level of accountability they expect from the creators of new ideas.
Policy, another subject entirely.
The Scientific Method prevails against everything you have said, and in fact, your statements reinforce the need for procedures that ensure against fallacy.