It's actually an argument for more cojones in science-- being willing to do bold stuff and explore "crazy" hypotheses. If all the easy stuff is done already, then picking methodically and timidly among the dregs is unlikely to ever yield anything.
> after centuries of science as a profession, pretty much all the easy stuff has already been done.
But with the benefit of all that has already been done, shouldn't we be able to do things now that were previously impossible? In other words, "easy in 2014" != "easy in 1200".
> It's actually an argument for more cojones in science-- being willing to do bold stuff and explore "crazy" hypotheses.
Maybe doing whatever's easy is the most efficient (by time, money) way to make progress?
Once you start hitting those, you've either entered a permanent era of diminishing returns or one where you can only really make progress by radically redefining problems, making leaps, or trying wild and crazy ideas in the hopes of unlocking some isolated seam of high-value research that isn't connected to the others in the fitness/value state space graph.