2 ms·

Nobody takes what is published at face value [1], the researchers read and reproduce the result. The reproduction is never published. If it's a positive result,

Nobody takes what is published at face value [1], the researchers read and reproduce the result. The reproduction is never published. If it's a positive result, the idea is to add a tweak and get a free paper, or combine with another technique and get a free paper, or copy the same idea to another area and get a free paper, or ... For negative results, it's more difficult, but if someone is getting a promising results, they will not just drop whatever they are doing because some random said it's impossible. It's also a matter of reputation. Everyone knows everyone and have read a few of the previous papers (or papers of the advisor/coworker/whatever). If the previous papers were good, it's a good signal to take a look at the new result. If the previous papers were dubious, you skim it in case there is something interesting, but may just ignore it. [1] Perhaps the exception are medical trials, but they have a lot of rules and paperwork to avoid lying, error, misrepresentations and other nasty stuff. Anyway, after reading a lot of ivermectin preprints during peak pandemic, I'm not so sure.

moktonar 1y ago
Sure, but if the result is convincing enough, it might linger for a long time before someone finds a corner case where it doesn’t hold. For these reasons I think it would be better to have a different approach.
- gus_massa 1y ago
  That's a hard problem. There is finite amount of money, so it's better to use it for promising research instead of potencial crackpots. Researchers have a finite amount of time, so it's better to focus on promising research lines instead of potencial dead ends. I'm not sure how to solve it, that avoids wasting money and time on flat earth research. (I think the researcher time is more critical. If 10% of the money is wasted, nobody would care, some research flops anyway. If someone wasted 5 years doing flat earth research, it's difficult to get back. (I'd ask x5 of the money in exchange of the reputation damage.))
  - moktonar 1y ago
    You solve it by staying skeptic! :)

moktonar 1y ago

Sure, but if the result is convincing enough, it might linger for a long time before someone finds a corner case where it doesn’t hold. For these reasons I think it would be better to have a different approach.

gus_massa 1y ago
That's a hard problem. There is finite amount of money, so it's better to use it for promising research instead of potencial crackpots. Researchers have a finite amount of time, so it's better to focus on promising research lines instead of potencial dead ends. I'm not sure how to solve it, that avoids wasting money and time on flat earth research. (I think the researcher time is more critical. If 10% of the money is wasted, nobody would care, some research flops anyway. If someone wasted 5 years doing flat earth research, it's difficult to get back. (I'd ask x5 of the money in exchange of the reputation damage.))
- moktonar 1y ago
  You solve it by staying skeptic! :)