Specifically with respect to quantum theory, this advice is bad (see here, here, and subsequent comments). It is one thing to be open to unusual ideas, or to accept unexpected facts. But the prevailing interpretation of quantum theory has thrown out an ontological principle—that to be is to be something, that some properties by their very nature must take determinate values or not exist at all—so basic that it hardly even has a name, and which is nonetheless basic to objective thought. Accepting quantum theory, for most people, is going to mean not just accepting the empirical success of its predictive formulas, but also accepting some of the metaphysics, which in this case is a recipe for halting discovery.
I would request that anyone who wants to argue with me about this should first read the discussion at the link I have supplied, especially the debate with Greg Kuperberg.
Specifically with respect to quantum theory, this advice is bad (see here, here, and subsequent comments). It is one thing to be open to unusual ideas, or to accept unexpected facts. But the prevailing interpretation of quantum theory has thrown out an ontological principle—that to be is to be something, that some properties by their very nature must take determinate values or not exist at all—so basic that it hardly even has a name, and which is nonetheless basic to objective thought. Accepting quantum theory, for most people, is going to mean not just accepting the empirical success of its predictive formulas, but also accepting some of the metaphysics, which in this case is a recipe for halting discovery.
I would request that anyone who wants to argue with me about this should first read the discussion at the link I have supplied, especially the debate with Greg Kuperberg.
That’s certainly true if the metaphysics you’re accepting is the Copenhagen Interpretation, which for most people it seems to be.