I believe the argument is not that X should be funded over Y. Rather, the argument is that a theory should have a clear path to producing empirical evidence in

I believe the argument is not that X should be funded over Y. Rather, the argument is that a theory should have a clear path to producing empirical evidence in order to receive serious funding. Otherwise, the money is guaranteed to be wasted. There are a million different models one could devise to fit any given number of parameters. Without empirical evidence, it’s impossible to pick one. That’s the argument. And the fact that we’ve gone from “the layman couldn’t possibly understand the science” to “it doesn’t cost that much any way” is telling. How about a good reason to keep doing this type of research at all?