My own sense of failure is in the purely scientific sense: In order to have a meaningful idea, it has to be falsifiable. In other words, it has to be a hypoth

My own sense of failure is in the purely scientific sense: In order to have a meaningful idea, it has to be falsifiable. In other words, it has to be a hypothesis, and testable. Then you apply the test that would falsify it, and if the idea fails, you have learned something, and are able to focus your next hypothesis in a more useful direction. It sounds like the objections like this article completely miss the point of that. It's not like we're telling people to go and do something random and stupid and then trumpet about it.