[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Journal of Negative Results -- Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
On 1/16/07, Julia Heathcote <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I wonder if there'll be much interest from palaeontologists? I went to one
talk at GSA a few years ago, the whole point of which was that the fieldwork
attempted had been absolutely fruitless - no fossil find whatsoever. Should
we be taking more note of places where there are "no dinosaurs here"? It
struck me as rather pointless at the time, as presumably it only takes one
positive result to disprove the assertion that X area has no dinosaur
fossils, and render the research null and void. But I accept if we all
chose not to publish results that could be disproved, a) it would be rubbish
science and b) none of us would publish anything.
Well, in a bayesian point of view "negative result" must be considered
in a posteriori probability calculation.