[qsort]

> We need to be able to dedicate resources to theories that do not provide better predictions, but that provide new perspectives.

You are talking as if this isn't the case already, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Mo...

I don't think that the usefulness of alternative viewpoints is contested by anyone, the problematic part of the article is the vague, ill-informed critique of 'scientific rigor'.

What other way is there to judge models than to compare them with experimental results? Grounding theories to experiments is literally the only thing that separates science from crackpottery.

It's also pretty weird for the article to criticize "logical positivism", when the most common contemporary views on the topic of philosophy of science (e.g. Popper, Kuhn, Putnam) don't actually agree with logical positivism.

[adlpz]

I agree, this is the case already to some extent. And yes, the article is quite vague in general. I believe it's intended as thought-provoking and not really a proper argumentation. I think in that sense it's an interesting piece. We must remember to not be too myopic when knees-deep into our over-fitted math frameworks.

I'd only add that, in my opinion, the vehement rejection of non-mainstream ideas is actually more common in non-professional circles. While a physicist may find interesting considering a new idea, a physics enthusiast, in my personal experience, is much more likely to acuse of pseudoscience and crackpottery. It's sort of a validating and gregarious warm and fuzzy feeling. Look at those people with their clearly energy-conservation-violating nonsense. Hey, I've done it before.