Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
I think there is a tendency in science to measure what is measurable and to decide that what you cannot measure must be uninteresting.
A healthy economics has got to have both conceptual, theoretical research and applied, empirical research.
In order to displace a prevailing theory or paradigm in science, it is not enough to merely point out what it cannot explain; you have to offer a new theory that explains more data, and do so in a testable way.
Biology has tended to be an observational science, and deriving things from first principles has not been possible in the past, but I hate to predict the future on that.
In the future, I'd like to see paleontology as a whole get a lot more quantitative.
Unfortunately, a lot of economists wanted to make their subject a science. So the more what you do resembles physics or chemistry, the more credible you become.
I have a bias, and I don't deny that. But it's not so much an emotional attachment with objects that we study: it's a point of view based on the evidence. We simply know more about Enceladus.
