[joe_the_user]

The thing about this article is it seems to make the implicit assumption that hostility to novelty is a bad thing. I don't think that's justified. Obviously, allow no new ideas into a field and it will die but allow too many new ideas into a field and you have a recipe for the field becoming a pseudo-science.

Before you propose changes to allow more ideas in, it would be appropriate to have some measure of whether a field is too tight or too in the amount of ideas it allow now.

[doliveira]

That's not really the zeitgeist in tech circles like here on Hacker News. Galileo syndrome and the whole disruption mindset means here we even have programmers wanting mathematicians and physicists to stop doing algebra with Greek letters and symbols.

In the end, quackery is much more likely than truly disrupting ideas.

[nostrebored]

That would require a level of meta awareness about science that adherents of specific fields just don’t have.

People could’ve said the same about phlogiston.

We live in an age where we assume we are right about most things, that’s completely historically unjustified.