4 ms·

> They have individually less weight than a positive value, is the argument. Yes, and that argument is quite false. The history of science shows that positive

• JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  That's nonsense on the face of it. Negative results can be minted at 100's per minute, by trying things that are very unlikely to work. Clearly their value depends upon the selectivity of the investigator; clearly that varies.
  • sp332 12y ago
    If you're testing the same thing over and over, that's less likely to yield interesting results whether you're getting positive or negative results. Middle-school science classes get millions of positive results per year, but that doesn't mean they're valuable.
  • lutusp 12y ago
    > That's [i.e. giving equal weight to positive and negative results] nonsense on the face of it. If you understood the history of science, I wouldn't needs to explain this. The Michelson-Morley Experiment had a negative outcome, a null result. It was replicated by people intent on "saving the ether" until everyone was satisfied that the null result was real. This ushered in the relativistic era and modern times. But if the null result had been discarded, it would have been an extraordinary disservice to science. Penzias and Wilson were sure their antenna was dirty or their equipment was faulty, something pedestrian, until they systematically eliminated all such causes, and were left with a signal emanating from the sky in all directions. Having falsified all plausible causes, they consulted with some physicists who told them that they had detected the much-awaited cosmic background radiation. A revolution in cosmology and several Nobel prizes resulted. Null results have an equal standing with positive ones. But if they're not published, the same studies will be repeated by people unaware that the path has already been tread. Also, conscientious scientists always remain alert to the possibility that their pet theory is nonsense and explainable in ordinary ways -- that's also a null result. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/social-sciences-suffer-from-severe-publication-bias/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/social-sciences-su... Quote: "When an experiment fails to produce an interesting effect, researchers often shelve the data and move on to another problem. But withholding null results skews the literature in a field, and is a particular worry for clinical medicine and the social sciences. "Researchers at Stanford University in California have now measured the extent of the problem, finding that most null results in a sample of social-science studies were never published. This publication bias may cause others to waste time repeating the work, or conceal failed attempts to replicate published research. Although already recognized as a problem, “it’s previously been hard to prove because unpublished results are hard to find”, says Stanford political scientist Neil Malhotra, who led the study." > Negative results can be minted at 100's per minute, by trying things that are very unlikely to work. Yes -- like Edison trying to invent the light bulb. Edison generated thousands of null results, and one positive result. "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." -- Thomas A. Edison
    • deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]