14-08-2017, 05:52 PM
I can't help but think that part of the problem is the mismatch in attention given to serious but unspectacular work and wild solutions. If you propose something, however small and useful, you might only reach a few other researchers. Yet if you come up with the most rash and worthless theory you'll get oodles of attention and interviewed on television. Thus serious researchers might feel tempted to 'dress up' their work to get a bit more attention, while wild theorists will defend their work fiercely just to maintain the attention that they have received.
For example, you can come up with a pretty half-arsed piece of work one year (say, 2014) and still be a well-known name three years later despite having been disproven and failing to make any further advance.
For example, you can come up with a pretty half-arsed piece of work one year (say, 2014) and still be a well-known name three years later despite having been disproven and failing to make any further advance.