[MD] What all is about.

[ian glendinning]

Sorry Ham, how utterly cynical are you .... ?

The "non-subjective" methodology applies to the basic empiricism of
"scientific method". But science is much more (you are now
agreeing).... but it was your own words explicitly mentioned
scientists and avoidance of creativity - no misrepresentation by
others here.

When you say
Objective research and technology (!) .... , for a theorist in Science
or Philosophy to allow his imagination to "run wild" in order to gain
notoriety or celebrity status demeans the credibility of his
profession.

Objective .... what world are you living in, Victorian ... one that
sticks people in socially conditioned pigeon-holes ?
Listen to Ron

What has celebrity status got to do with scientists particularly ?
Surely that's true of any "profession" ... though tactically any
publicity can be good publicity ... if your profession needs
communication. The important quality is not to mix up this tactic with
other aspects of one's profession.

The key word in the Brittanica extract is "more", repeated severally.
Nobody's professions is all one or the other, and nobody's profession
is any one thing for all time. Formal rigour when needed, creativity
(yes, even wild flights of irrational fancy) when needed. When finding
hypotheses and metaphors the more left-field the inspiration, often
the better, more likely to block-bust existing socially conditioned
blinkers.

Ian