Comment by godelski

It could, but that could also have negative impacts to the system. I don't actually want people like Loeb to stop publishing. Off the wall thinking can be helpful. The reason for this is that you're still doing work.

It is exploration, so think about it this way. Everyone says "there's no gold over there" and then someone says "well did anybody check?" It helps when someone comes back like "yep, I checked, no gold."

Even if it was very likely it is good to know. Those big breakthroughs only happen by challenging the current paradigm. By definition this is almost certainly true. You're not going to create paradigm shifts by maintaining the current paradigm, right? So you have to maintain space open for wild and crazy ideas. Hell, take the famous multiverse theory in physics. It is almost certainly wrong but it still can provide some utility too. Same is true with String Theory. It has to be okay to be wrong in science. You won't progress if this isn't possible. It also would mean you can't progress even if you're right but no one listens!

The problem is you're trying to fundamentally measure something intangible. With scientists you're trying to measure impact. But the only way to measure impact is through hindsight, which sometimes takes hundreds of years. Every single measure you take, no matter how obvious and simple it may seem, is a proxy. Your measurement cannot be perfectly aligned with the thing you intend to measure. Many times the alignment difference will be almost nothing so it doesn't matter, but with things like this? Sorry, you're not going to be able to measure scientific output unless you can travel to the future to make that measurement. (similarly, you can't measure a student's educational outcome until after they have left school and applied that knowledge, including their metaskills.)

You should measure, but with things like this, measures are a dangerous trap.