A major cause is publish-or-perish. And expert-group-bias. That last one is like: "Experts in astrology agree that astrology is working well."
We can spot these phase-locks by comparing the theoretical predictions with the actual real-world results. I also noticed that some of the results are altered afterwards to fit to the model.
Another signal is that good (and friendly) criticism is attacked, with personal attacks usually. This often happen when two different experts meet. From their expertise they come to different conclusions.
I noticed that these conflicts are hidden due to the peer-review system. Each specialisation is controlled by their own experts. This means that the different experts won't touch each other areas much. And just stay at their own territory to avoid conflicts. Or do not even widely publish their conflicting results.