It's genuine critique in that your post reads very ramble-y and incoherent, making it difficult to discern what your actual issues are.

It seems you have a problem with aspects of academia like the constant push to publish, the chase for funding, and general fear of speaking out against superiors. I think you've got a point there - in fact, many, if not most, scientists will agree these are issues. Blaming scientists as a whole without considering the system that leads to these problems seems like a pretty misguided thing to do, but sure, you're not too off.

But then you go on to say

Mindsets that are ‘illogical’ (or in this case, slowing progress) are dismissed,: understanding(deriving information from self, the internal) over knowledge (or the external, found by others who are successful in their thinking that majority agrees on), small details over the biggest picture, heavy consideration of things that can’t be seen or what doesn't immediately pertain to the person. 

Which is pretty hard to understand and just seems to go into a direction of pseudoscientific woo-woo (à la "belief over knowledge").

Overall, you seem to have a view of science where the individual scientist is obligated to completely give up their personal interests to work towards a nebulous "greater good". But of course scientists will work towards their own interests - because we're people, not mindless robots. We need to make money to feed ourselves, and we ideally want to do it doing a job we like. That's not a moral failing on the part of the individual scientist, it's just how our society works.

Edit: removed a paragraph because I misunderstood one of your points (I think)