3 ms·
I don't see why everything published needs to be the absolute truth (which of course nothing can be). If they had published six years ago, the whole community
by fifnir 8y ago
I don't see why everything published needs to be the absolute truth (which of course nothing can be).
If they had published six years ago, the whole community would have been able to validate and confirm in those six years,
instead of just their own lab. Someone in a different lab might have had a better idea and the thing could be validated in two years instead of six.
As long as results are transparently and reproducibly shared, knowledge is knowledge and there's no reason to hide it.
- tru3_power 8y agoThat’s very true for the scientific audience consuming the paper- but often times media outlets convey anything published as accurate
- naasking 8y agoAgreed, but there's no doubt some ego and prestige at stake for a) not wanting to look stupid for making an elementary mistake, and b) being the one to upend currently accepted wisdom. There's probably a balance to be struck between these, but sometimes it might just take 6 years.