3 ms·
In real science, not the TV kind, negative results are important, too.
by imglorp 10y ago
In real science, not the TV kind, negative results are important, too.
- nerdponx 10y agoTell that to the journals...
- saboot 10y agoJournals usually publish negative results from major experiments. Here's the one for LUX http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.021303 http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118...
- simcop2387 10y agoYea my layman understanding is that it's a social pressure to not publish the results in the first place.
- saboot 10y agoIt depends, lots of these experiments result in better bounds on theories. LUX for example pushed down the cross-section for WIMP dark matter below the previous measurement. That in itself is an advancement, with implications on what theories for dark matter are possible.
- sullyj3 10y agoIt literally says that in the second paragraph.
- barrystaes 10y agoI agree, but not all TV.. "Failure is always an option." - tshirt Adam Savage on Mythbusters. ;) I often remind myself that "No is an answer too." when doing research or other time-hole work.
- kodfodrasz 10y agoIndeed, but unfortunately the lack of positive results is not a negative result in itself... This is when explaining a megaproject to the funders starts to become harder and harder.
- epmaybe 10y agoI was at a conference this morning and heard results from a highly anticipated clinical study, with millions of dollars in NIH funding. The results were disappointing for me and some others in the field, but I think that it's better to have the negative result than to not know what is best for patients given our current techniques.