Actually, to my great surprise, "give my field more money" was only one of his suggestions. It was, in fact, the last suggestion of his, and (at least to my reading) least important.
The rest of his answer is quite reasonable, and doesn't even need new money:
1. Seek out people with different points of view and invite them to join the discussion.
2. Give money/influence to individuals, not to large fiefdoms/research programs.
I think he is quite right on this. In at least one area the author mentioned (foundations of QM), even a single person with different views can be beneficial to a department. At Rutgers (where I got my Ph.D.) the math physics group has a single advocate of a deviant view. The department would be weakened if we replaced him with a normal scientist of equal quality.
Diversity of ideas is important, and we definitely don't do enough to promote it.
"... Diversity of ideas is important, and we definitely don't do enough to promote it. ..."
True. Sometimes I think working at the edges of problems and across several fields reduces the chances of recognition. But it's here good ideas & people emerge.
Wouldn't that be, diversity of informed ideas is important?
Why might it be that people with the background to have an informed opinion on something do not show greater diversity in those opinions? (Or maybe they are there, and politics keeps them out of the inner circle?)
>Why might it be that people with the background to have an informed opinion on something do not show greater diversity in those opinions?
For one reason or another, one viewpoint gets a leg up on the other one. After this, life is easier for those with the mainstream viewpoint, and new people join the establishment.
Case in point: I'm working on a paper right now in foundations of quantum mechanics. I did most of the work with Bohmian mechanics as my mental model (as a result of being exposed to a "deviant"). That viewpoint helped a lot, and I probably wouldn't have built my model without it. Note that the model is completely justifiable without it, but it's an unmotivated magic trick.
I've given talks about it from a non-standard perspective. People attack that. I've also talked about it, pretending it's black magic that yields a result everyone knows. People love that.
The result is the same, but I have an easier time promoting it if it looks mainstream.
It's no wonder people stick to the establishment. Even I'm going to stick to the establishment when it comes time to submit the paper.
The rest of his answer is quite reasonable, and doesn't even need new money:
1. Seek out people with different points of view and invite them to join the discussion. 2. Give money/influence to individuals, not to large fiefdoms/research programs.
I think he is quite right on this. In at least one area the author mentioned (foundations of QM), even a single person with different views can be beneficial to a department. At Rutgers (where I got my Ph.D.) the math physics group has a single advocate of a deviant view. The department would be weakened if we replaced him with a normal scientist of equal quality.
Diversity of ideas is important, and we definitely don't do enough to promote it.