Imagine, if you will, a bright young chap proposing an intriguing hypothesis for something. It doesn’t really matter what. What’s important is that it was a hypothesis that, at least on paper, sounded quite compelling.
So, an Abstract was written, and following the Abstract some justifications for the probable truth of the idea were published… and with that, efforts to prove this hypothesis began in earnest.
Now imagine 2,500 years elapsing since the proposal was first suggested, and in those 2,500 years absolutely NOTHING was discovered to even remotely suggest the hypothesis was, in fact, true.
This is not to say the hypothesis had lain dormant. It hadn’t. Generation after generation of bright people embraced the hypothesis and dedicated their entire lives to proving it true.
However, despite every effort, after 2,500 years the only progress that could be shown was that from time to time someone had reviewed the Abstract and had changed the odd word or two here and there.
100 generations of work, millions of man-hours, and the needle was not moved a single millimetre.
Given this, why after 2,500 years of complete failure should anyone still suspect the hypothesis held merit?