And why would someone become a scientist, essentially playing a lottery that they will discover something huge even though such discoveries are extremely rare?
1. They aren't.
2. Science is a creative endeavour.
3. If people believe that science is more important than creative endeavours then perhaps it's because science has brought us machines that allow us to fly, little magic boxes you can carry in your pocket that let you talk to someone thousands of miles away, the ability to have sex with a reasonable confidence of not making babies, other little pocket-sized boxes that will capture and replay highly realistic moving pictures, large bridges that don't fall down, people walking on the fucking moon, devices that can see into your body and tell whether you have cancer, other devices that can kill the cancer inside your body if so, things cheap enough for almost everyone to own that will let you travel five times faster than a fast runner for long distances, etc., etc., etc. What you call "creative endeavours" have produced wonderful things too, but if I had to choose between Hamlet and antibiotics I'll go for the millions of lives saved.
> Why is nature more interesting than the human imagination?
More interesting? Well, that's a separate question. To many people it isn't. Those to whom it is have all sorts of different reasons. One would be that nature has a lot more in it than the human imagination. ("There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy", as one of those creative types made one of his characters say -- though he meant something else.) Another would be that human imagination is limited by, well, human imagination, whereas nature is full of things that no one could have guessed. The moon is kept in its orbit by the same thing that makes an apple fall? Space and time are the same thing, and it's all curved? Light travels from A to B by taking every possible path from A to B and interfering with itself? These things, to someone who's thought about them enough to know what they mean, are astonishing.
> playing a lottery that they will discover something huge
I think you may have bought into the common misconception that all scientific progress is the result of occasional geniuses making huge leaps by the sheer power of their enormous brains. It doesn't really work that way. The advance of science is a collective endeavour; even if you never discover anything huge, you're contributing to it.
(And: why would someone become an artist, musician or author, essentially playing a lottery that they will create something wonderful even though such creations are extremely rare? Most books are unpublishably bad. Most published books are pretty weak. Even of the best published, most will probably be almost completely forgotten in ten years. -- And, again, there's nothing wrong with that: even a not-so-great artistic work enriches the world. And so it is with science.)
Both revolve around individuals that would rather do than talk, and both have a long tradition of passing on their knowledge to the next generation.
If you think science is a lottery then I think you are taking the word 'discovery' a bit too literally, think of it as having a hunch and then trying to find out if that hunch is correct or not.
A nice way to see the progression of arts through to science and back again is this chain: cave paintings -> oil paintings -> photograpy -> photography as art.
At ever 'stage change' science was the midwife that gave artists new tools.
It wasn't a lottery, someone was actually out looking for coal, found coal on the dirt and started to dig a little deeper until they found a vein.
Science is creative. We just don't usually think of it because science is that crazy thing with math and they like have this "scientific method" that they always follow. But why are experiments actually being carried out? Maybe someone has a crazy theory that under the right circumstances, a liquid can have 0 viscosity and start defying gravity. Or that there are forms of life that don't even need Phosphorous, one of the "key ingredients" to life.
Constrained by the bounds of your imagination and physics. Like errrm.. Art!
> Not much fun.
I think that needs a qualifier: "according to me" or something like that, I personally think science is great fun.
There are very good arguments that constrained creativity is the best creativity -- or perhaps the only creativity. Just choosing a medium or style for your art is constraining. Making a web page is constraining, making chocolate cake is constrained by certain parameters.
I think what you're looking for is "expressive" -- and I'd agree, scientific discoveries are by necessity creative, but usually not expressive. But that's not really an aim...
And why would someone found a startup, essentially playing a lottery that they will discover a huge market even though such discoveries are extremely rare?
Doesn't that sound a little silly?
I think a core similarity with those all is that it's healthier and more fulfilling if you're sustained by the process, not just the wildly rare best-chance ending.
Anyway, why are we being brainwashed to like science? Probably because we, as a society, respect and value the effects that you can trace right back to science. Same with art and creativity, really. If you want to have this argument you've got to get a lot more subtle and talk about real comparisons between the two professions.
As for your anti-science sentiment, I'm not going to comment on that.
People become scientists because they love science, they love learning about the world and they love the intellectual challenge. They don't do it to win a Nobel Prize or whatever. Science is it's own reward.