It isn't.  The entire point of the referenced MIT article was that
new ideas that were often quickly accepted, and much more
often when proof or verification was available, which is more
than a bit of a no-brainer.

I think it would be better to re-phrase the subject line to:

   "Why proving or disproving new ideas is often slow".

   "Why the peer-review process is such a pain."

   "Why philosophy about science is like
     dancing about bricklaying."

    "Why a 'paradigm' is worth only $0.20"

Here's something a tad more useful to the members of this
list - an actual critical-thinking checklist for detecting
"baloney" masquerading as "science", from none other than
Scientific American:

 www.sciam.com/2001/1101issue/1101skeptic.html


As an aside, the MIT article referenced:
 www.technologyreview.com/magazine/nov01/insight.asp

is just one of thousands of refutations of Thomas Kuhn, who
coined the make-me-gag phrase "paradigm shift".  Kuhn was
completely discredited in the 1960s, when he published his
book, "The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions".  It is not often
that one book prompts an entire book of point-by-point
refutation, but "Deconstructing Scientific Revolutions"
was just that - a entire book of corrections.

Mentioning Kuhn to any self-respecting practitioner in the
sciences these days is similar to waving a Taliban flag in
front of a Blackhawk helicopter.

By now, even I feel sorry for Kuhn.  He gets bruised more
often than Wiley E. Coyote in the "Roadrunner" cartoons.

Kuhn's approach to interpreting the history and process of
science is called "Retroactive Clairvoyance" by scientists,
and "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" by the layman.

For anyone interested, here's a decent critique of Kuhn
that keeps a fairly even tone.

  www.newcriterion.com/archive/18/jun00/kuhn.htm

        jim

          farmageddon  (where we play the rock tune
                               "She Blinded Me With Science"
                               at volume levels that can deafen)