I wish more people would publish their failures. Definitive proof that a hypothesis is wrong is just as solid a result as definitive proof the hypothesis is right.
this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
1178 points (97.7% liked)
Science Memes
11189 readers
1523 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- !reptiles and [email protected]
Physical Sciences
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and [email protected]
- [email protected]
- !self [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I wish more people would publish their failures.
Agree.
Definitive proof that a hypothesis is wrong is just as solid a result as definitive proof the hypothesis is right.
Disproving a hypothesis does not offer "definitive proof" equivalent to proving one correct, as it eliminates only one scenario among potentially infinite others, whereas proving a hypothesis correct directly builds upon our understanding of the world. The value of disproved hypotheses primarily lies in guiding future research rather than providing solid, actionable results.
Certainly, I don't disagree with that at all. And that's likely part of the reason so few people publish failures, because there's no "reward". All I was saying is there's still value there.
This is why my field (reinforcement learning) is unfortunately not science.
(Can't really publish "hey I tried this algorithm and it didn't work")
...because people don't accept that it's wrong? Or some other reason?
I guess I should've clarified; in reforcement learning "I was wrong in numerous ways" almost always translates to "unpublishable, try to not be wrong next time". Nobody cares if a reinforcement learning hypothesis didn't work, its only worth publishing if it worked well.
Gotcha.
I thought that was the norm in all academia these days? Can a physicist (or anyone from another field) publish results that didn't go as expected and save future scientists some time?
I know a good bit of micro biology, psychology, and medical trial fields can. But thats about the limit of my "other fields" knowledge.
There should be more value placed in publishing things that didn't work as hypothesized. That way scientists in the future can know if a particular approach just doesn't work.
Something like this, but completely normalized in the scientific world, where it's ok to publish attempts, whether they succeed or not.
I think we can agree "Good reseach" is in the how-its-done. I wish journals would chose/require/verify the how-its-done (time frame, resources, hypothesis, method etc) but after that be contractually required publish whatever conclusion is discovered by the team/project they picked and verified.
My PhD is a proof my hypothesis is wrong. It was a depressing time 😅
I had a null result for my MSc thesis. My supervisor lost interest immediately, and my funding went away. No interest in publishing a failure on his side, because the premise was flawed and he provided the premise. I dropped out and went to industry rather than be student poor with no funding.
yea unfortunately publishing science (in certain levels) unfortunately now involves %50 razmatazz, %30 having some well established coauthor and %20 over selling. It has turned into a weird ecosystem that feeds on resource (jobs) scarcity in academia and makes insane profits for publishers.
Not surprised it attracted all kinds of vultures that feed on the scraps (predatory publishers). It is really smelling decay and puss from a mile away.
Looks like they put off the science fair project for too long and had to throw this little number together the weekend before. Been there, I still remember mine: what genre of music will cats like? Hypothesis: classical. Result: hard rock. Sampled 4 cats over 5 genres, took an hour. Methodology was crap. Sample size was crap. It was a non-experiment that scraped a "you tried" grade
Right plant has had a rough life
You ever just have to sneeze but can’t?
I Have No Mouth and I Must Sneeze.
Closing your mouth or nose during a sneeze increases the pressure in the airways five to 20 times more than a normal sneeze. With no escape, this pressure has to be transmitted elsewhere and that can damage your eyes, ears or blood vessels. Though the risk is low, brain aneurysm, ruptured throat and collapsed lung have been reported.
https://www.sciencealert.com/you-can-stop-a-sneeze-but-heres-why-you-never-should
Oh shit. My pollen allergy in spring is a death trap.
I've escaped death numerous times it seems. I would say I've stared death in the eyes, but you can't do that when you sneeze.
The thing that blew my mind most based on what I thought would happen when put to the test, was that elephants really are frightened of mice. I would have swore that was just a dumb cartoon trope and IRL the elephant wouldn't even give a shit.
Have you never watched mythbusters? Are we at a point in time where the Mythbusters are ancient history and not simply common knowledge? OMG what year is it? How old am I?
I literally am referencing mythbusters. 🤨
I don't know how to correct my mistake. But, you're right, I was wrong. Let this be a testament to the truth. Astartes mechanicus Jesus fucking christicius. Amen.
I'm pretty sure that was in the 'yes, but also no' category. IIRC, they don't see very well and small fast things on the ground spook them, probably because snakes. Pick a mouse up and bring it up high enough for the elephant to get a good look at it and they're fine with it.
From what I remember they hypothesised that, but then put it to the test by having something else small move in front of the elephant and it didn’t care. Further confirming it was the mouse it was afraid of
tbf that is also how I feel about mice.
I always had this with the story of field workers using masks in the back of their heads, in order to deter tigers from attacking from behind. I just couldn't imagine the tiger falling for it.
A lot of animals have bright spots in the back of their heads that kinda look like eyes, to deter predators. Actually, I believe tigers themselves have fake eyes on the back of their ears
Actually, I believe tigers themselves have fake eyes on the back of their ears
Then it's even more embarrassing that they fell for the masked workers ;-)
Hey they can't see the fake eyes on the back of their ears!
Reminds me of plants that have evolved to look like animals
And insects that evolved to look like plants. It's a circle of liiiiife!
view more: next ›