To the latter: my point is that except to the extent we’re resource constrained, I’m not sure why anyone (and I’m not saying you are necessarily) would argue against any safe line of research even if they thought it was unlikely to work.
To the former: I think one of the things we can usefully bestow on future researchers (in any field) is a pile of lines of inquiry, including ones that failed and ones we realized we couldn’t properly investigate yet, and ones where we made even a tiny bit of headway.
my point is that except to the extent we’re resource constrained, I’m not sure why anyone (and I’m not saying you are necessarily) would argue against any safe line of research even if they thought it was unlikely to work.
I mean, all claims that research X is good are claims that X is relatively good compared to the existing alternatives Y. That doesn’t mean that you should only do X, probably should diversify in many cases.
We absolutely do have resource contraints: many good directions aren’t currently being explored because there are even better directions.
To the latter: my point is that except to the extent we’re resource constrained, I’m not sure why anyone (and I’m not saying you are necessarily) would argue against any safe line of research even if they thought it was unlikely to work.
To the former: I think one of the things we can usefully bestow on future researchers (in any field) is a pile of lines of inquiry, including ones that failed and ones we realized we couldn’t properly investigate yet, and ones where we made even a tiny bit of headway.
I mean, all claims that research X is good are claims that X is relatively good compared to the existing alternatives Y. That doesn’t mean that you should only do X, probably should diversify in many cases.
We absolutely do have resource contraints: many good directions aren’t currently being explored because there are even better directions.