You can forget a scentific knowledge and somebody in the future may stumble in the same thing. The same can't be said of other human activities
The GP has given evidence of some instances where people who claim to be scientists obstruct the investigation of truth.
You merely gave an assertion. Appeal to emotion.
Isn't there a possibility that we are much more ignorant than we thought, the scientific process much worse than you'd thought, and the instances in which we "eventually" realized the truth are just the tip of an iceberg, of which those cases merely reflect survivorship bias, and that there are many more cases in which the truth never came to light?
You have to be an extreme optimist to look at the history of science to claim that there is a "beauty" in the persecution of those who seek truth, only because eventually in a couple of cases, the truth was eventually discovered. Perhaps there is a beauty eventually, but are you seriously going to say to those people who have lost their reputation and job that it's "beautiful" that the system is doing that to them, because maybe in a couple decades they would be vindicated assuming they aren't already forgotten?
This attitude is really sick, and honestly, a bit psychopathic.
Even the worst of superstitions and persecutions eventually stopped. The Romans eventually stopped feeding Christians to lions. The Catholic Church eventually realized burning witches wasn't a good idea. Germany renounced Nazism. Europe eventually realized colonialism was a bit sus. Americans eventually abolished slavery. Things do fix themselves, even outside the realm of science. Is there a similar "beauty" in those systems as well?
What is so special about the modern scientific process, in which you seem to admit it has flaws, just like religious and political systems, that allows it to realize the truth unlike the others?
Wrong, very wrong.
Do you believe that reality doesn't exist?
'Reality' isn't something that different people can easily agree on. Most people including professional scientist have little or no inclination to investigate their beliefs.
You seem to be throwing the baby with the bathwater and being too cynical if you conclude that reality just cannot be something people agree on just because there are (and always will be) particular areas of research where people are far from objectivity because led by other interests)
No, I didn't disagree with the scientific process per-se. But don't put too much faith in it either if there are things at stake for you. You have to personally investigate a subject if needed if the stakes are high enough. Medicine is one area I can think off. Don't always conclude that it is a generally upward trajectory of better understanding either. People often replace one set of superstition with another.
In the end it really depends on your personal background and experience. If you have never taken on the establishment or if you never observed an anomaly with established expert/scientific opinion you won't know the rot.
indeed you're right to be suspicious of others, when there are incentives that drive their behaviour in ways that are not necessarily aligned with your best interest (consciously or unconsciously).
but, the sad truth is that you yourself can be victim by all sorts of biases and not even personally investigating stuff will necessarily bring you closer to an objective assessment.
The best you can do is to be critical of your own biases, inasmuch as possible.
It cuts both way: the superstition of the conspiracy is also a thing that clouds the mind.