If you're a scientist, it's best for your career to do small incremental improvements on previous research. That guarantees a steady stream of publications.
If you go for a big idea and are wrong, then your career is over.
Also, peer review is censorship. If you're doing something radically different, it's less likely to pass peer review.
It's not just government funding. It seems that even most scientists and fans of science are hostile to research projects that seem to contradict known facts or trusted theories.
For example, consider the recent report from NASA's Advanced Propulsion lab on a weird microwave resonance chamber that supposedly produces an anomalous thrust when powered up. In their initial test, they found a force that they could not explain as error, and recommended a more rigorous set of testing.
Keep in mind that this is a respected institution (NASA), that is funding a small team of people to check out ideas that seem crazy. It's exactly what this article says we need more of.
Yet, the reaction was visceral mockery and rejection, even from other professional scientists. Not even a "hmm, that's really weird, we should keep checking this out." It was more like, "you stupid idiots, don't you know that's impossible??"
It's a cultural problem in the U.S. that seems to go well beyond funding. The public supporters of science have become so focused on fighting culture wars against "bad science" that their default reaction to anything surprising is to attack attack attack.
When in fact the whole point of science is to find things that seem unexplainable, and then try to find an explanation.
2 comments
[ 16.9 ms ] story [ 590 ms ] threadIf you go for a big idea and are wrong, then your career is over.
Also, peer review is censorship. If you're doing something radically different, it's less likely to pass peer review.
For example, consider the recent report from NASA's Advanced Propulsion lab on a weird microwave resonance chamber that supposedly produces an anomalous thrust when powered up. In their initial test, they found a force that they could not explain as error, and recommended a more rigorous set of testing.
Keep in mind that this is a respected institution (NASA), that is funding a small team of people to check out ideas that seem crazy. It's exactly what this article says we need more of.
Yet, the reaction was visceral mockery and rejection, even from other professional scientists. Not even a "hmm, that's really weird, we should keep checking this out." It was more like, "you stupid idiots, don't you know that's impossible??"
It's a cultural problem in the U.S. that seems to go well beyond funding. The public supporters of science have become so focused on fighting culture wars against "bad science" that their default reaction to anything surprising is to attack attack attack.
When in fact the whole point of science is to find things that seem unexplainable, and then try to find an explanation.