> Close to nothing of what makes science actually work is published as text on the web I appreciate the author didn't find a good product-market-fit. But the a

> Close to nothing of what makes science actually work is published as text on the web I appreciate the author didn't find a good product-market-fit. But the above claim makes no sense and isn't supported in the article. The author doubles down on the idea later: > All that is to say: discovering relevant literature, compiling evidence, finding mechanisms turns out to be a tiny percentage of actual, real life R&D The author admits to not having worked in research, and this is one place that lack of experience shows. This is the kind of thing that takes years, or decades to develop an appreciation for. Discovering relevant literature, efficiently and well, is a thing that can make or break you as a research scientist. Over time I've sensed the devaluation of literature search skills in science, but I've also noticed those that can't do good literature searches do bad research. They waste time, sometimes years, in re-discovery of old results. They commit resources to experiments that don't need to be done. They have objectively worse ideas because they don't actually understand the field they're working in. They can't see the holes in the literature that lead to opportunities.