• Aurenkin@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    8 days ago

    Having your findings disproven isn’t failing though right? You still added to the body of knowledge because we know more stuff. I’m not a scientist though so I could be wrong. Pseudoscientists add nothing and just do harm though.

    • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      0·
      8 days ago

      If all is being done on the up and up, nobody’s got an agenda to push, they’re actually doing science: no. Doing an experiment, publishing results, and then having your peers replicate your experiment and be unable to reproduce your results is not failure. In the words of Adam Savage, “It’s not ‘my experiment failed,’ it’s ‘my experiment yielded data.’” But also, if one scientist gets a result and no one else does, the real thing we learn might be in finding out why.

      REPEAT is a part of the scientific process.

    • EmptySlime@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      0·
      8 days ago

      It’s not a failure in the usual sense we think about it, no. You were still “technically wrong” in whatever hypothesis you had that was disproven. But the end result is different because theoretically everyone involved cares more about the answer being found, not necessarily that they are the one to do it.

      Hell, in cases where whatever you did was later proven incorrect it’s usually that whatever you did was the most correct answer for the information we had at the time. Then new information is discovered and often someone else builds off what you did to get this new answer.

    • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      8 days ago

      Theoretically yes, but in practice, negative results don’t usually get published. People don’t want to fund negative results. Every fu ding agency is always chasing novelty, and impact. Our scientific community is actually kind of bad with actually doing science. We are lucky if we get negative results widely known these days.

      • thevoidzero@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        8 days ago

        I’ll keep saying it. Let’s have a journal system for negative results and replication studies. Give partial credits for it relative to journal papers with novelty.

        So if you have an idea you can search there, see if someone has tried it and failed, and how they failed. You can also search a certain paper and see if people have replicated the study.

        It’ll help everyone immensely.

    • brokenlcd@feddit.itEnglish
      0·
      8 days ago

      No work is wasted if it gives a clearer picture of something. Even if you get disproven, it just means that you found one of the dark parts of the picture. Now sure, people mostly remember the ones that discover the brighter parts of the image. But the whole picture is still made of both the dark and bright parts. We don’t just need to know what works, we also need to know for sure what DOESN’T work. Or else we’ll never know the real bounds of something.

      Now if you don’t mind, i’ll go back to slamming my head against analysis.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    8 days ago

    I like to export the failing onto other people, though.

    gravity doesn’t really care who tries to disprove it, they still go splat.

    • FireRetardant@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      8 days ago

      Or “your research results will hurt my profits, this media campaign will slander your credibility. We’ll do our own research, with blackjack and hookers, and bribed results”

    • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.netEnglish
      0·
      8 days ago

      For example, a friend of mine ran a study that disproved a company’s study that they used to push a product. Then my friend’s company got blacklisted by the first company for all future products.

  • vvilld@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    0·
    7 days ago

    There’s really only failing, then learning, then death

    My kids have me listening to way too much Disney music lately…

  • nthavoc@lemmy.todayEnglish
    0·
    7 days ago

    To make this meme work I am assuming pseudoscience are your flat eathers, anti-vaxxers, anyone who publishes bogus papers to push an agenda. Their experiments are replicated, produce completely different results to contradict their hypothesis and these pseudoscientists simply refuse to accept the data produced after sound methods are used and verified. They end up becoming zealots about it too.A hypothesis being wrong is not bad at all but their own personalities prevent them from accepting it.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          0·
          8 days ago

          Elves, trolls, orcs, dwarves, ents and hobbits are real! It says so on the holy book: The Lord Of The Rings.

          • MTK@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            8 days ago

            You have the right energy but the wrong book, join my book club, the one and only true book club!

              • MTK@lemmy.worldEnglish
                0·
                8 days ago

                It’s not a set schedule, every now and again someone from the club decides that we don’t know how to read correctly and opens up a new book club with his own version of the book, which is of course not the one true book.

                • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                  0·
                  7 days ago

                  I don’t know.

                  The whole thing sounds like it will lead into fights amongst true book clubs because the members of each will think theirs is the true book, not the other ones, and the fights might even be worse between the true book clubs that were originally the same. I all sounds kinda dangerous.

                  Plus, how would I know if the book of your true book club is in fact the one and only true book if there are other true book clubs which like you book also claim to have the one and only true book and its a different book?

  • BlackRoseAmongThorns@slrpnk.netEnglish
    0·
    7 days ago

    I really don’t like this “no true scotsman” flavored meme, the profit incentive destroys valuable research by limiting resources to replications of past experiments (as soon as something is profitable, you must not disprove it for a fear of retaliation from companies promoting said something), this is systemic, not an individual level problem, get rid of “bad scientists” and more will be propped up.

    I do like the sentiment of the meme though, more more replication is needed.

  • MetalMachine@feddit.nlEnglish
    0·
    7 days ago

    We need to push more for good science because a lot of times there is a ton of pressure to produce research and go along with the current established theories instead of being able to challenge them.

  • Wugmeister@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    0·
    8 days ago

    Meanwhile, Higher Education research be like:

    • publishes good quality research on the efficacy of an advising methodology
    • immediately gets ripped to shreds by professors from schools using other advising methods
    • academic advising will never be a career due to the lack of consensus