[uxp]

I saw this same remark during the particle experiments at the LHC. If they discovered the Higgs, then we learn that our guess was right. If they can't find any evidence of the Higgs, then we learn that we might not be right. In any case, we learn things.

I liked to apply that to the Rosetta mission as well. The happy-path goal was to land a craft on a comet. If everything went 120% better than expected, then we would get a large amount of data about the surface of comets. If things went the way they did in actuality, then we get a large amount of data about comets. In either case, we learn a hell of a lot more than we did having not done the mission, regardless of it's outcome.

Science and knowledge isn't binary. Sure, you can say you either know something or you don't, but knowing something has a range of n through infinity. "Failure" gives you the option to learn more.