Scientists would be WORSE at their job if they were more rational & less emotional

[DefenderOfBasic]

Scientists would be WORSE at their job if they were more rational & less emotional

• "Well-loved theories do not usually die suddenly. People try to find ways of retaining the central ideas of the theory while adding complexity to the explanations"
• a lot of breakthroughs in science require creative leaps, "frame breaking"
• it is possible to keep systematically seeking evidence and refining incorrect theories forever and get stuck, and never get better predictive models
• Examples: Einstein's breakthrough? copernicus ?
• the real answer is, it probably depends. A lot of progress in science is probably stifled by emotional attachment to (1) a specific conclusion/answer (2) one's work and reputation (3) politics
  • but that isn't a rational vs emotional thing? if you're on the right path but you aren't playing politics, you won't get resources, your path of inquiry will be lost and won't be carried further

[DefenderOfBasic]

(i could also be totally wrong, that hyper rational agents could figure out ways to get out of this local minima and do better science and have breakthroughs etc. I think it's just, as humans we have access to this specific type of cognition that IS useful if we use it, and does have its own quirks. I think it's just a myth to see it as "only getting in the way" because it has been critical for progress)