It's been like that since forever. A lot of scientists are so terrified to come across as disrespectful of orthodoxy that they'd never publicly entertain unconventional ideas. The risks of shaming, name-calling ("crackpot", "pseudoscientist", "quack", "fraud", "idiot", "fool") and funding loss constantly loom for a lot of people. And let's not pretend this doesn't have everything to do with money and politics. People and institutions deeply invested in, and cushioned by, status quo norms have every incentive to get nervous about disruption.
I have to admit: I get some satisfaction watching naysayer rationalists get it wrong time and time again. Grumpy, mean people who can't see the big picture for ass but make categorical, reductionist big picture claims (e.g. about impossibilities) under the guise of rationalism, they're quite often just wrong, because the map is not the territory. The longer you cling to a crusty old map, the more likely it is that eventually you'll get lost, though you might never admit it to yourself.
Then there are the people who carefully balance their skepticism with open minded curiosity and a sense of imagination, who are interested and engaged in the social exchange of ideas and perspectives. They're often more quiet, less attention seeking, less worried about determining who's "wrong" and who's "right".
That's why I enjoy Quanta magazine. They profile all kinds of people doing real, interesting, groundbreaking work, people who aren't sitting around playing clout games. They tell stories about the collaborative relationships that make science possible.
And then there's the 99.9% of people who completely ignore the "crusty old map" of science and get scammed by grifters selling them a brand-new fantasy map every other week.
You don't have the right to be curious about anything until you have at least glanced at the real map. And you deserve to be shamed as a crackpot, pseudoscientist, quack and fraud if you are.
I have to admit: I get some satisfaction watching naysayer rationalists get it wrong time and time again. Grumpy, mean people who can't see the big picture for ass but make categorical, reductionist big picture claims (e.g. about impossibilities) under the guise of rationalism, they're quite often just wrong, because the map is not the territory. The longer you cling to a crusty old map, the more likely it is that eventually you'll get lost, though you might never admit it to yourself.
Then there are the people who carefully balance their skepticism with open minded curiosity and a sense of imagination, who are interested and engaged in the social exchange of ideas and perspectives. They're often more quiet, less attention seeking, less worried about determining who's "wrong" and who's "right".
That's why I enjoy Quanta magazine. They profile all kinds of people doing real, interesting, groundbreaking work, people who aren't sitting around playing clout games. They tell stories about the collaborative relationships that make science possible.