Use of the Scientific Literature (osmium & irw)

[kidneystones]

irw writes...[...]

Thanks for the reply. First, I support the exercise in analysis in a group setting. My question is whether we learn only from having our expectations met. I do almost all my own reading in the social sciences, but I do some history of science.

Isn't it true that scientists often/sometimes get results that don't support a hypothesis? Or that suggest/confirm a working hypothesis has fundamental flaws? Darwin spent an immense amount of time testing the solubility of seeds. The result? He discovered that the dispersal of seeds in sea-currents could not explain the spread of plants. His theory of pangenisis turned out to be wrong. I'm sure you could cite hundreds of similar examples.

My own work now calls into question some canonical assumptions. There must necessarily be flaws in this exercise. Indeed, if we're trying to push the envelope, we're perhaps going to be more wrong than we are right.

It seems likely (to me) that you and Osmium are principally trying to establish which papers are clear, simple and have a single solid point. That's a worthy exercise. However, I'm arguing that there's often as much to be learned from poorly-constructed papers riddled with mistakes. I think Osmium pointed out that the safest, soundest arguments sometimes tell us nothing new at all.

Again, many thanks for the reply and a terrific dv. Come back soon, please.