The Economist waxes philosophical with an article that asserts that ground-breaking – and wrong – science is more likely to get published in the higher-profile journals (read Science and Nature) than solid but accurate science. While there is a kernel of truth to this (I’ve seen some ludicrously overhyped articles in Nature), I’m suspicious because “ground-breaking” means “new”, and The Economist reflexively hates all things new. The Economist is so conservative that it brings life to the adage
a true conservative is someone who hates all change – even change for the better.
It doesn’t surprise me at all that The Economist is attracted to an argument (especially one based on the law of supply and demand) that casts suspicion on newness.