5 ms·
One flaw in your analogy is that if all you do is actually just delete code (you don't replace the code), that's not usually valuable. It is easier to publish
by argonaut 10y ago
One flaw in your analogy is that if all you do is actually just delete code (you don't replace the code), that's not usually valuable.
It is easier to publish null results than it is to publish legitimate positive results (of course easiest of all is to publish bogus positive results). It doesn't require creativity or brilliance to publish null results, just competence (competence enough to replicate).
Of course, it is still valuable, so a thoroughly analyzed and argued negative result should be publishable in prestigious venues - but this is more a reflection of the value to the community than the actual novelty/brilliance of the work.
Put another way: a university is not going to hire you if all you've published are null results. They want leaders who are going to pioneer/discover/invent/theorize new fields.
- bandrami 10y agoThe Catholic church for centuries now has employed an advocatus Diaboli, someone whose entire job it is to examine claims of miracles and make the argument that in fact they are natural phenomena. They are priests who have been trained in science (there's a perhaps surprising number of those). I think this is a good thing. There should be somebody whose job it is to poke holes in the castles we build.
- JorgeGT 10y ago> there's a perhaps surprising number of those The Vatican still runs an astronomical observatory that researches trans-neptunian objects, exoplanets and so on: http://www.vaticanobservatory.va/ http://www.vaticanobservatory.va/
- bandrami 10y agoSimilarly, an astronomer friend of mine trains Buddhist monks in physical astronomy. These are almost certainly good things.
- argonaut 10y agoYes. Those are peer reviewers. And people still publish negative result papers.