
Is there a creativity deficit in science? - quesera
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/09/is-there-a-creativity-deficit-in-science/
======
snowwrestler
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.

------
fsk
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.

