[vertbhrtn]

In some sense, the modern institute of science is somewhat like an orthodox church: a few pre-approved lines of thinking with a swift punishment for heretics.

This is the biggest strength of science: this rigidness of thought is what protects it from clever charlatans. But this is also its biggest weakness because this risk-averse behavior, when scientists can't risk saying unapproved things without torpedoing their own reputation, is why science makes only tiny steps. Right now physics has reached a rather big obstacle on its way and the usual risk-averse-one-tiny-step-at-a-time tactics won't work.

[mrtksn]

Wasn’t it always like that? If someone actually believes in non-orthodox ideas will simply face the backlash, follow the path anyway and later be recognized for the extraordinary accomplishments if these ideas turn out to be worth the salt.

It’s much better to give a hard time to dedicated people than to risk giving an easy time to charlatans.

Since you can’t really judge novel ideas, you can make the process just hard enough that charlatans drop out to some area where they can get fame and money for cheaper.

[foobar1962]

One of the challenges with unorthodox ideas is that occasionally some of them lead to great new understandings, but it's a very low signal-to-niose ratio. The orthodoxy can perhaps be excused for their reluctance for entertainment.

[vertbhrtn]

Professional scientists can't bet their reputation on a novel idea: a 1% chance it'll work out and 99% chance the scientist will be sent to academia's exile. It's better than what would've happened to them in medieval ages, though.

In past, many of the breakthru ideas came from aristocrats: they were rich enough to not give a shit about their reputation in academia.