I've found that either a Ti or Te bias is actually observable in many academic disciplines.

For example, Theoretical Physics seems a more Ti oriented field. Physicists build upon each other's theoretical models and the internal validity of these models is paramount... i.e. string theory, we can't observe that 11 dimensions exist and we can't observe a string but according to the mathematics they do exist and in the future we may be able to observe their existence. The weakness of Ti-oriented fields is that there's less individual freedom as you must work within the mainstream models, thus if a brilliant physicist discovers something amazing that contradicts a mainstream view he is more likely to be dismissed.

vs.

Te-oriented - practical sciences (i.e. psychology, chemistry etc.) in these disciplines the validity of information is dependent more so on external validity. In other words the results of an experiment must be able to be observed and reproduced for them to be valid. The scientific method is the backbone of this approach and provides a basis for obtaining "objective truth." The weakness of Te-oriented fields is that the slow-paced methodical process hinders scientists from attempting to prove the existence of large-scale profound theories for which failure could mean the end of their career, so they have to take smaller less provocative steps (i.e. Eyseck's Introversion/Extroversion model instead of socionics)