Good point. The trouble is that the experts are human, and can sometimes fall into human habits, such as the unwillingness to look at new ideas that shake up the status quo.
One example in this vein is Alfred Wegener, who put forth the concept of continental drift in 1915. His theory was not generally accepted until after WW II, when evidence of magnetic bands on either side of subsurface spreading zones first started to be reported. His theory wasn't accepted by geologists until many years after his death in the 1931, primarily because the evidence he had found was circumstantial. Given that his training was in astronomy and biology, I can't help but think that his theory was discounted at least in part by the geology experts of his time.
Another example in the area of geology is that of J. Harlen Bretz, the geologist who provided an explanation for the unusual topography in Eastern Washington state; namely that glacial Lake Missoula in present-day Montana had drained with extreme rapidity, causing catastrophic floods capable of moving 200 ton boulders in water flowing at 65 mph, as well as a waterfall three times the height of Niagara Falls, and about five times as wide. When Bretz presented his theory to the National Geological Society in Washington, DC, in 1927, the geology "experts" were most eager to quash this challenge to their uniformitarian views. They were not much interested in evidence or seeing the landscape for themselves, so it was not until the late 1950s that his explanation came to be accepted by the majority of experts in geology.
