It's really the homogeneity that hurts the natural sciences, when it can strike deep enough.<p>Politics just drive homogeneity across the board, and favor the softer targets.<p>But Feynman's certainly not alone.<p>I first noticed this trend in the 1970's myself.<p>Plain to see it was only going to get worse.<p>If you don't want to experiment on the same old Shinola the same old way, the mainstream's not really going to be for you.<p>As for the article, in kind of an anti-meta meta-analysis the only worthwhile data are the "Measures of Document Similarity" and everything else is the political stuff they are ranting about but they're not doing it in a scientifically similar way to be very comparable.<p>Even though the graphs are all equally pretty, in natural science you get the only data solid enough to make <i>fair</i> political decisions based on it.<p>Any science that's not "natural" enough to overcome all serious doubt (other than things like superstitious doubt[0]) would ideally have all agendas removed then become fully "naturalized" before becoming a basis for decision-making, especially political decisions.<p>Oh, well.<p>[0] "Superstitious doubt" includes an unrealistic lack of belief in cause & effect for something that's definitely going to happen, the opposite of a cargo cult which I would then term as "superstitious anticipation" which is their unrealistic belief in cause & effect for something that's definitely not going to happen.