You're asking the exact same questions I'm interested in pursuing in my film. I don't come from a science background, but took some classes in my undergraduate years at Yale, specifically on fractals and astronomy. Although I am an amateur science buff, I've always been fascinated with the dissemination of information in the scientific community and how science history is written.

I want to go in with as little "slant" as possible. Your analogy of science as the supreme court is a good one. I'm doing a part of my doc on the careers of Nikola Tesla and Immanuel Velikovsky. Science history seem to regard these men with a certain myth-making respect, radical scientists who were later vindicated, men ahead of their times. I want to investigate whether it is possible to be ahead of the times in science, what does vindication mean, and what role does "personality" play in science.

Does science always "rule" in favor of the "truth" - what does "winning theories" mean.

I would like to be as open in my film as possible to both sides of the argument, if there are even two sides of the argument on this case...