> Being wrong does not mean being useless. I understand what you're trying to say -- yes Newton was wrong and now we have refined Newton with Einstein. But Pt

> Being wrong does not mean being useless. I understand what you're trying to say -- yes Newton was wrong and now we have refined Newton with Einstein. But Ptolemy was wrong, and we have not refined Ptolemy with Gallileo, we threw Ptolemy out. As an example, the original power pose study has never been replicated. The idea that posing in a specific way led to a neuro-endocrine response was simply wrong. And yet it got cited many times. One of the the original authors disavowed it, the other continued promoting it, but now with a much weaker claim. Is it science? Or is it a waste of resources? I think much of the research I'm deriding is actually pretty good thinking. Published as essays or thought experiments I think a lot of it would have value. But because of a perverse demand for publications, any good idea has to have prior work, p-values and if you can get a grant and fMRI slapped onto it.