2 ms·

Well you get the funding before you do the experiment and thus before you know whether it's going to disagree with existing research. If you have the results be

by jjk166 4y ago

Well you get the funding before you do the experiment and thus before you know whether it's going to disagree with existing research. If you have the results before you do the experiment, you're not doing science.

dekhn 4y ago
No, grant proposals normally expect you to provide preliminary results. The more controversial your proposal, the better your preliminaries have to be. Especially you have to convince the funding deciders that you did the appropriate positive and negative controls.
- jjk166 4y ago
  Preliminary results are results from a previous experiment that already had to be funded. And yeah, you don't want to throw funding at researchers who are only getting weird results because they are bad at conducting research.
  - dekhn 4y ago
    Literally every preliminary result I got was from an experiment that was explicitly not funded for the purpose it was requested for. That is, by year 2 of my grant, I was spending my monies on stuff I hadn't proposed, to prepare for the next grant proposal. I guess part of the reason I exited academia was because I was bad at conducting research :)
- ricksunny 4y ago
  The chicken-and-egg problem illustrated in this thread seemed like the most appropriate place to highlight: So (see disclaimer at the end) there is a publication I appreciate called Seeds of Science. My understanding is that it is (in part) intended to offer a pathway to work around structural failure in comventional peer review; As its web page describes: " What is a 'Seed of Science'? It is a speculation, an idea for an experiment, a novel observation, a thought-provoking question and discussion, the highlighting of an under-appreciated problem, or an unorthodox research study" They got an ACX Grant last year from AstralCodexTen to pursue this. --- CoI Disclaimer: My work is published in SoS.

2 ms·

Well you get the funding before you do the experiment and thus before you know whether it's going to disagree with existing research. If you have the results be

by jjk166 4y ago

dekhn 4y ago
No, grant proposals normally expect you to provide preliminary results. The more controversial your proposal, the better your preliminaries have to be. Especially you have to convince the funding deciders that you did the appropriate positive and negative controls.
- jjk166 4y ago
  Preliminary results are results from a previous experiment that already had to be funded. And yeah, you don't want to throw funding at researchers who are only getting weird results because they are bad at conducting research.
  - dekhn 4y ago
    Literally every preliminary result I got was from an experiment that was explicitly not funded for the purpose it was requested for. That is, by year 2 of my grant, I was spending my monies on stuff I hadn't proposed, to prepare for the next grant proposal. I guess part of the reason I exited academia was because I was bad at conducting research :)
- ricksunny 4y ago
  The chicken-and-egg problem illustrated in this thread seemed like the most appropriate place to highlight: So (see disclaimer at the end) there is a publication I appreciate called Seeds of Science. My understanding is that it is (in part) intended to offer a pathway to work around structural failure in comventional peer review; As its web page describes: " What is a 'Seed of Science'? It is a speculation, an idea for an experiment, a novel observation, a thought-provoking question and discussion, the highlighting of an under-appreciated problem, or an unorthodox research study" They got an ACX Grant last year from AstralCodexTen to pursue this. --- CoI Disclaimer: My work is published in SoS.