I agree. There is another aspect of that which is troubling. For the scientific method to truly work we need to know about failures as well as successes. Failures can be nearly as important to the process. In fact, if we don't know of failures we likely have a lot of repeat studies being done all over the place which is highly inefficient.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
"Failures can be nearly as important to the process."
I think scientists might often remove the world nearly here.
Yep. :) I almost did. Then I thought. Once they succeed there technically are no more failures on that exact subject. Yet there will be new failures on trying new things. So since success was reached that's why I put nearly in there. That was my thought process.
Good point. It's hard not to argue the "one combination to the lock" isn't more valuable than any single faulty combination.