It has been proved through the centuries that scientific prejudices, usually owing to someone's personal feelings, are always restrictive in character.

Ultimately the accepted explanations of experimental facts are in the direction of an enlarged account of Nature. Examples are copious in Astronomy: geocentric versus heliocentric systems, the Galaxy as the whole Universe versus the ``realm of the nebulae'', the Sun near the Galaxy's center versus the Sun in the outskirts of the system, the circular versus conic orbits, etc. Many other examples may also be found in other branches of science.

Let us call such a general approach to phenomena, i.e., the, sometimes unconscious, restrictive modeling as the straitjacket behavior in doing science.

Now, a question is posed: is it not true that an anti-straitjacket view (ASJ) of Nature would serve as a guideline towards the better explanation of experiments (observations)?

As an example of application of ASJ, take the following query. What is the better model for the Universe, an expanding or an ever-lasting stationary one?

Answer, please.