40 ms·
I think that the problem is we consider a result as either "positive" or "negative". All correctly preformed experiments add a positive ammount of knowledge.
by cninja 18y ago
I think that the problem is we consider a result as either "positive" or "negative". All correctly preformed experiments add a positive ammount of knowledge. Humans tend to classify unexpected results as negative, but that is not necessary.
- omouse 18y agoThe problem then is that humans don't know how to use definitions. In a specific study, a result can be negative, but in the general view, it would be positive because it contributes to the body of science.
- etal 18y agoThat's not what negative means here. For these studies the conclusion is a statistical test -- accept or reject the null hypothesis. If a drug doesn't give results significantly different from a placebo, that's "negative". More to the point, when a researcher collects a pile of data, does some analysis, and can't see a damn thing either way, then either the experiment was flawed to begin with, or that absence of meaning is a real, useful result. Maybe the sample size just wasn't large enough to show a small but significant trend. It takes a fair amount of confidence in one's skills to rule out the first possibility and announce loudly that there's nothing to be seen further down the path you took.