The interview with Katherine Blundell discussed how scientific exploration was limited by preconceptions that restricted scientists' creativity. The example provided was of solar systems. In this example, Blundell discussed how part of what caused scientists difficulty when initially searching for other solar systems is the fact that they were searching for other solar systems like our own, rather than entertaining the possibility that other solar systems may look differently from our own. Thus, when this limiting belief was overcome, scientific progress could be realised.
If I had conducted the interview, I would ask how such concepts relate to other areas of scientific inquiry. What other areas of science were — or continue to be — limited by scientists' own beliefs? Perhaps the very idea that something is limited, or rather, that we know most, if not all, there is to know about a particular topic is what limits us. Here, the metaphor of a lampost is interesting. It also directly relates to the example of solar system discovery as previously mentioned above. We envision our solar system as a "lampost" of sorts, but don't consider the possibility that other solar systems could resemble a lantern or a flashlight. I wonder how this could apply to other scientific pursuits, particularly climate science or artificial intelligence.