Conversation

Replying to and
... there will be something unusually creative or valuable. We should welcome all possibilities for that, no matter how unlikely. The only crime a researcher can commit is pretending that shoddy work isn't shoddy, or speculative work isn't speculative.
1
9
Replying to and
Posing, or refusing to admit the limitations of what you've done is (in my mind) the one great crime in research, that I think should not be tolerated. But I have no problem with people being naive, speculative, and/or lazy, so long as they admit it.
1
5
Replying to and
One more point, neither for or against the case you set out here - you may want to be careful with words like lazy, they tend to be ableist - doing a *full* literature search is hard, disproportionately for some groups (e.g. dyslexics, ASD and ADD)
2
1
Replying to
that's very fair - i don't think there's any external offense in what you said - but I question if it's even a fair put-down on yourself*? ascribing something to laziness is, paradoxically, lazy *you of course are the final arbiter of this
2
1
Replying to and
Laziness is good. I like Shalizi and Tozier but I don’t buy their theory in that note at all. I’m in favor of aggressively ignorant rediscovery/reinvention (much more robust guarantor of QA than formal replication). Full lit survey is an especially dumb burden on preprints.
1
6