Thinking has always been humanity's greatest strength.
It is our ability to think as a species, that has lifted us above the level of the animal, and it is something that is innate to us as a species. As prominent as this ability was, the power of it didn't truly spring forth until the Renaissance, which led to the The Industrial Revolution.
The rapid progress, allowed us to manipulate nature as we needed, and catapulted us into the comfortable level of (historically speaking) extreme wealth that we take for granted.
This process began to grind to a halt in the 1970's, as a result of the desire to increase size of the pool of educated people, however the increase of scientists, as a result of the increase of universities, led to a number of scientists (and proposals) that are impossible to fund.
In addition to the number of scientists requiring funding, the unit cost of scientific research was also increasing.
Thinking about how many people it takes to run the LHC, and how many more people it would take to run the new collider they're lobbying for.
Agencies decided to the restrict the availability of funding to the proposals that they prioritized, but the problem is that prioritizing research proposals, is a fools game, because no one really knows which theory will bear fruit.
As a result: Thus, for the first time since the renaissance, the limits of thinking began to be systematically curtailed.
One might ask, how are these policies unsuccessful, when the quality of life is increasing? The reason is that most of the improvements to our modern life, are the result of old research, that we finally have the technological sophistication to implement, or are making 10% improvements on.
Furthermore, we are entering a time where the need for greater scientific evolution is required.
This points toward the humanitarian critique in Against Method, that by restricting scientists, we are hindering humanitarian goals, as the needs of humanity expand and evolve.
Abstract qualities, such as freedom, are human needs, in the same way that air and water are, however because it's abstract, it will often be overlooked, because there's no way to quantify it.
Unfortunately for the frog, it's inability to quantify temperature does not stop the water from boiling.
Freedom is a managed commodity, and for many sectors of society, this is perfectly acceptable, however, the scientist cannot do with commoditized freedom, as the potential opportunities for scientific discovery, may reside in odd and unexpected, potentially barred offplaces.
Advances in Science can happen almost in an instant, or after years of painstaking work, and recognition of the results of this work, as well as the work finding a place in mainstream doctrine, requires some level of acceptance of the work from the community, which may not be very open minded.
As Max Planck stated, "...in a synthesis of thought where there is an all around logical coherence, any alteration of one part of the structure is bound to upset other parts also...no alteration in a well built synthesis of thought can be effected unless strong pressure is brought [upon it] from the outside. This strong pressure must come from a well-constructed body of theory...".
Planck is actually supporting the concept of counterinduction here, re-stating thatÂ
In a post-Planck world, scientific institutions, however, seem to have abandoned this perspective on the nature of scientific research and progress, making it more difficult for tenured researchers to acquire funding, and making it more difficult for young scientists to carve out a path to a career.
We actually live in a world where Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect would have been dead on arrival.
In his time, convincing the scientific community was still an arduous task, but it was the only arduous task, because funding was available, and peer review didn't have such a stranglehold on the community: "[scientists]...peers did not have the power of veto."
Furthermore, there was a respect for new, contradictory ideas, and young researchers who proposed them, or at least a willingness to hear them out in the court of scientific experimentation: "One's dedication and talent would usually be sufficient to silence the critics..."
At the end of the day, dedication and talent are what actually "does" the science, and should be held in the highest possible regards, because they are the canaries in the coalmine of scientific discovery.
"At the time of Einstein's annus mirabilis...he had not been able to find an official position within the circle of university physics...in a few years he was recognized and offered various prestigious positions..." - Richard Hamming - The Art of Doing Science and Engineering
From Planck's perspective, if you are going to critique a theory or propose alternatives, it is your duty to convince the scientific community that the alternative is necessary.
Planck was not an advocate of light changes to the status quo, advocating for "strong [external] pressure".
In his time research wasn't beholden to objectives and management, or centralized planning and authority, with the majority of the issues with progress being issues rooted fundamentally in science.
Due to the need for modern scientists and researchers to lay out their plans for proposals and funding, the spontaneous aspect of science has become lost, and scientific research predictable, due to the small class of proposal types that due get accepted.
Considering that only 20% of proposals get accepted, and whatever percentage of these is successful, we are creating a hell of a bottleneck between research and mainstream science.
One of the glaring realities of the cost of this is that, it inhibits the kind of research that lead to the most productive era in science, which was full of discoveries that came out of the blue: "There was no demand for them."
This is diametrically opposed to the bureaucratic way of doing science now, demanding something of the research and the scientists carrying it out.
Until we move from expecting scientists to predict and layout the entirety of their research plans, we will be stuck making 10% improvements on old discoveries and applications, because no revolutionary science or research can come from this method.