This is the current “why not?” ideology: any new idea deserves to be studied, just
because it has not yet been falsified; any idea is equally probable, because a step
further ahead on the knowledge trail there may be a Kuhnian discontinuity that was
not predictable on the basis of past knowledge; any experiment is equally interesting,
provided it tests something as yet untested.
I think that this methodological philosophy has given rise to mountains of useless
theoretical work in physics and many useless experimental investments.
This is not how modern science and funding work. You must make a case, labs don't get funding for random ideas.
Are you saying that a prominent and reputable scientist, and an excellent science communicator by the way, knows more about science than a random Reddit user?... You're going to get a lot of downvotes, buddy.
Very clever and dismissive. See my question to the other gentleperson. Rather than snark, maybe clear up any misconception I have about the statement I quoted.
24
u/spencabt 18d ago
This is not how modern science and funding work. You must make a case, labs don't get funding for random ideas.