[nonbel]

You may be unaware that the idea and initial development of MRI came from someone who does not believe in the sodium potassium pump. In fact, it was developed specifically based on alternative theories regarding how ionic concentrations are regulated. He is also a creationist... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Vahan_Damadian

The guy who developed PCR (basically DNA testing) also has some interesting views: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis

From this I conclude that scientific advancement doesn't depend so much on commonly accepted scientific claims.

[sanoli]

It doesn't matter. The people who develop newer MRI machines will use what they believe in the formulation of their experiments. If that initial development of MRI that you mention didn't amount to nothing, it would have been thrown aside by the medical and scientific communities. If I believe in the Loch Ness monster and I develop a new vaccine that can have its efficacy demonstrated in rigorous studies, so what about my Loch Ness? What part of him being a creationist affected the technical aspects of his MRI studies?

[nonbel]

>"What part of him being a creationist affected the technical aspects of his MRI studies?"

Nothing, I just gave those examples of people to show science can be systematically corrupt/wrong (since it is in their minds) and there will still be advancements.