> This is a terrible assumption when it comes to basic research. Even trying out things that don't work is progress, since it narrows the space of possible sol

> This is a terrible assumption when it comes to basic research. Even trying out things that don't work is progress, since it narrows the space of possible solutions. The only ways to really set back progress would be by getting others to believe something that's untrue, for example by faking research. You could manage to not advance the field by not publishing a finding and leaving the field. You can slow progress for example by popularizing a path that doesn't lead anywhere, discouraging people from going down the right path, or just reducing popularity or funding of the field. But slowing progress doesn't erase progress. If you do genuine work and at least talk about it with colleagues on a conference that's advancing the field. > What are you basing this on? The classic graph everyone uses would be 1, which shows consistent progress over ~40 years. It's a bit out of date now, but I assume the trend has held since then. > Can you quote the line from the article that renders the title misleading? I didn't call it misleading, I called it lazy and uninformative. A (mild) form of clickbait, because it merely hints at information without providing any. My English teacher would have deducted points for that title. 1: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Progress-to-Date-in-Achieving-Conditions-Required-for-Fusion-Energy_fig1_335586712 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Progress-to-Date-in-Achi...