The scientific method is to test the predictions that follows logically from theories. If the predictions are wrong then the theory is wrong. It is not scientific to add "reasonable limits" that do not follow logically from the premise and that prevents testing against observable facts. But nor is it scientific to lump one theory with a theory that has a different premise just because they are somewhat similar and assume that they make the same predictions either. If there are some anomalies that existing (mainstream) theories cannot explain, do a metastudy, investigate the anomalies and compare them to a control group of non-anomalous examples that the old theory can explain. This allows spotting of differences in the circumstances, a deconflationization that drives science forward. Lumping every observation into a single statistic and dismissing the anomalies as "anecdotical" is unscientific false generalization.
Willingness to guess wildly and subsequently admit error is thus crucial for science. Ergo, any pressure to save face is antiscientific and antiintellectual. So is the "scientific community" really scientific at all, with all of its academic hierarchy, credit and discredit? Obviously the "scientific community" is full of antiscientific pressure. There are some cases where official "scientific" papers have published new theories and observations that do not fit into existing theories, of course. But then, most if not all organizations contain people who leak secret information too. And with all that antiscientific pressure around in the "scientific community", there is no reason to think that something must be bullshit just because (most of) the "scientific community" boycots it. Read the theory instead. If it is bullshit, it either makes false predictions or is too vague to make any predictions at all. So just test the theories!
The objection that there is "too many theories to test" is based on the false assumption that every theory must be tested separately, when in fact the same deconflationization-metastudy can falsify multiple theories. This does NOT mean that theories can be falsified by straw men that does not follow logically from their premises (they patently can not), the "falsify many theories at once" is only about cases where many theories makes the same prediction in some regard, which they often do. And deconflationization-metastudies usually only requires cheap reading of experiments already done (not expensive new experiments) so many deconflationization-metastudies can easily be done. To do real science, start sharing theories and observational/experimental results outside the Machiavellian academia, informally (such as on Pure science Wiki).
Also, share advice on how to make scientific equipment as cheaply as possible on do-your-own pages that are free for anyone to read, which can be created on this wiki. It is also a good idea to facilitate recycling of scientific equipment by selling it cheaply second-hand, bartering it for other kinds of scientific equipment or donating it to other non-Machiavellian users of the scientific method. See advice for cheapening science.
Any invoking of "burden of proof" is based on the false assumption that there must be an official view. Having a non-evidence based official view just to have an official view is unscientific. There is nothing wrong with considering multiple theories equally as possibilities. Favoring pet theories is just an occupational hazard in Machiavellian academia that have no place in true science. The claim that you should "have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" conflates considering of possibilities with dogmatic belief. Considering something as possible is not dangerous at all, unless you start favoring it as a pet theory. Claiming that pet theories are anyhow inevitable constitutes possibility of science denialism.
Advocating bans against studies that you consider necessary for a theory to be testable is also antiscientific.
Using vague pejoratives or transferring criticism from a theory that the criticism logically applies to to a theory that the criticism does not logically apply to because of a supposed association between the theories is not scientific.
Making predictions as conservative as possible to avoid being falsified is not scientific. The more predictions, the better the opportunities for falsification. Conservative predictions are shying away from falsifiability. The most likely reason why conservative predictions became cultural norm in the official "scientific" community is because of its prestige-obsession and fear of falsification, which is hostile to the pure scientific method.
It is important to distinguish between what follows logically from the premise of a theory and what is shown by observations/experiments. Just because a prediction is false does not prevent it from following logically from the premise of a theory. In fact, theories MUST be able to make false predictions, or else it would have been impossible to disprove theories.
Do not punish hoaxesEdit
As shown in brain, tolerance is the key to improvement, so punishing those who have once hoaxed in science is the wrong way to go. Since investigations of responsibility creates social pressure to justify, investigations of hoax responsibility should not be done. Remove the motifs for hoaxing instead.