[nick238]

The idea is that some null hypotheses being true is actually interesting because it challenges an assumed belief. From the first paragraph of the article, the immediate feedback from the postdoc's supervisor was 'you did it wrong [because everyone knows that fish do like warmer water]'.

> It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

[SeanLuke]

> The idea is that some null hypotheses being true is actually interesting because it challenges an assumed belief.

??? As I had said originally, that's one of the primary situations where a negative result should be published.

But the huge, huge, huge majority of negative results are trivial and uninteresting. Thus the fundamental issue with negative results is that you have to provide rather more compelling justification for why such results should be published.

[nick238]

Yeah, I agree with your first point, but maybe misunderstood your reply? If there's nothing "surprising" about the result, it's not interesting, so not publishable. The article's first example, however, did seem to be surprising to the researcher's community, so it should have been published.

[SeanLuke]

Sure. What I said, or had meant to say, was in reply to people complaining that there was some kind of cartel against negative results. Rather, what we're seeing is just the natural, if unfortunate, response to the basic problem with negative results as a whole. You can't just treat them as the same as positive results: because of their numerosity they require unusual justification for their publication.