I would argue that confirmation of the shape in 1G has some actual value. Sometimes "silly" experiments can have value. I chatted with a physic prof once who

I would argue that confirmation of the shape in 1G has some actual value. Sometimes "silly" experiments can have value. I chatted with a physic prof once who said the very first experiment he did after gaining tenure was to investigate the isotropy of the universe in particle accelerator experiments -- in other words, do the laws of physic work the same way when the accelerator is pointed one direction, relative to distant stars, as any other. Obviously, the likely result would be nada. However, if he found something, it would be two possible things: (1) He was going to earn an instant Noble prize, or (2) There was a potential subtle systematic design error particle physicists had overlooked -- knowing how to look for this error and/or correct for it could have value. #2 was more likely. But why not?