Every proposal for turning lead into gold is a hypothesis about how lead could be turned into gold, but this doesn’t make alchemy science. Good science progresses through small problems conclusively solved, building on each other, not by trying and repeatedly failing to reach the grand goal.
I dunno. I feel like there should be a symmetry between positive results and negative results, like well-designed but failed experiments shouldn’t lose science points just because they failed.
While I wouldn’t go so far as to say that huge number of grand designs with negative results are not science, it seems to me like they are trying to brute force the solution.
Every negative in a brute force attack only eliminates one key, and doesn’t give much information as negatives are far more numerous than positives. It is not a very efficient way to search the space, and we should try to do a lot better if we can. It is the method of last resort.
Every proposal for turning lead into gold is a hypothesis about how lead could be turned into gold, but this doesn’t make alchemy science. Good science progresses through small problems conclusively solved, building on each other, not by trying and repeatedly failing to reach the grand goal.
I dunno. I feel like there should be a symmetry between positive results and negative results, like well-designed but failed experiments shouldn’t lose science points just because they failed.
While I wouldn’t go so far as to say that huge number of grand designs with negative results are not science, it seems to me like they are trying to brute force the solution.
Every negative in a brute force attack only eliminates one key, and doesn’t give much information as negatives are far more numerous than positives. It is not a very efficient way to search the space, and we should try to do a lot better if we can. It is the method of last resort.