Have quant-finance become more square headed?

Reading more and more "older" texts on finance it seems like people where very open minded in the 1800, early 1900 and until the 1970s:

In 1960 people wrote about "the velocity of the stock's price movement' , about the 'mass associated with the price change' about the 'kinetic energy in stock transactions' etc. (Joseph Whyler)

In early 1900 Henry Moore a Professor of Political Economy at Columbia University was investigating the possibility of planetary impacts on business cycles. He was also detecting high-peak and it looks like fat-tails in price data (cotton) in 1917, but was basically ignoring it. (Fat-tails in price date was known even earlier).

Most people (and all quants) would laugh at this now (planetary impact on business cycles), I did also to begin with, but it is not as stupid as you would think. At least no more removed form reality than assuming continuous time delta hedging to remove all the risk all the time, something many university professors in finance takes deadly serious, especially if they never have worked for a investment bank or trading firm.

Quant finance is in a ongoing crisis and I think we need to open our minds to get forward. I think a very very ancient and dusty text I just got hold of could be a lead in the right direction, more on this later, 2010.

It is soon 2008 Open Your Mind, Open Your Mind!