← Back to context

Comment by timr

7 hours ago

> That we can say across the board that good research must have easy-to-control experimentation and guarantee novelty?

That is not my point, but it is a true statement, yes [1]. Science without controls is not science. Science without novelty is called an undergraduate lab exercise.

> Good research is field dependent

Controls and novelty and rigor are not field-dependent. If you want that, go do English Literature or Philosophy or something. They love to entertain unresolvable debates about post-modernism.

[1] Modulo the "easy" part. I feel like you put this in as some kind of emergency exit slide from the debate, so I'll just say up front that good science doesn't have to have "easy" controls. It must have controls.

I may have moved some of the goal posts but you refuse to engage with your own bias. I think we can move on.