>'Toxic effects of Thing on subject'>"We conclude Thing is Toxic">'Benefits of Thing on subject'>"We conclude Thing is Beneficial">'Effects of Thing on subject'>"We conclude Effects of Thing are important, but more studies are needed"Why is every single article on modern science a loaded question? Is it bad form to negate your hypothesis?
>>16902806>Is it bad form to negate your hypothesis?Ideally no. But kinda.Null hypotheses don't often get published unless they're surprising in some way. Boring results that don't prove anything aren't gonna get cited much so they go in the bin.
>>16903047>Don't get publishedWhy is science ruled by this publishing economy bullshit? You're pushing lies if all you do is relabel a collection of biased studies, What's the point then?
>>16902806None of those are questions
>>16903110>Why is science ruled by this publishing economy bullshit?Making your results public IS publishing whether it's in an established scientific journal or some schizo's blog. The distinction is how seriously people are going to take it.The alternative is achieving practical results which is more of an industry thing.
