Re: Is a Journal of Negative & Partial Results necessary?

From: george murphy (
Date: Sat Oct 20 2001 - 13:55:49 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "Fwd: The Origins Solution" wrote:

    > Tim Ikeda wrote:
    >> Most likely, >85% of this unpublished 90% is crap, but with search
    >> engines, is there now enough storage and filtering capability to
    >> locate
    >> gems and justify the effort? And how? Online notebooks? An E-journal
    >> of
    >> Negative
    >> and Partial Results? Is there some form of editorial control and
    >> publication
    >> quality assurance that would work in a high-data, low information
    >> environment?

    > (3) Finally, no result is in fact sometimes an important
    > result. Michelson and Morley is perhaps a good historic
    > example.

            This may not be the best example of the sort of thing Tim is
    asking about, for the importance of the MM experiment was seen pretty
    quickly by the physics community. Another example is the the discovery
    of some physicists as far back as the late 20s (including one of my
    profs at Johns Hopkins) that some strange asymmetries showed up when
    they used electrons from beta decay in experiments. None of them at the
    time saw the significance of this & just used electrons from a cathode
    instead. In retrospect they were seeing the weak interaction's
    violation of parity conservation which wasn't appreciated until 1956 (I



    George L. Murphy
    "The Science-Theology Interface"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 20 2001 - 13:54:30 EDT