<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_03_2332233</id>
	<title>The Journal of Serendipitous and Unexpected Results</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1265217780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>SilverTooth writes <i>"Often, when watching a science documentary or reading an article, it seems that the scientists were executing a well-laid out plan that led to their discovery. Anyone familiar with the process of scientific discovery realizes that is a far cry from reality. Scientific discovery is fraught with false starts and blind alleys. As a result, labs accumulate vast amounts of valuable <a href="http://bytesizebio.net/index.php/2010/01/31/jsur-yes-sir/">knowledge on what not to do, and what does not work</a>.  Trouble is, this knowledge is not shared using the usual method of scientific communication: the peer-reviewed article. It remains within the lab, or at the most shared informally among close colleagues. As it stands, the scientific culture discourages sharing negative results. Byte Size Biology reports on a forthcoming journal whose aim is to change this: the <a href="http://www.jsur.org/">Journal of Serendipitous and Unexpected Results</a>.  Hopefully, scientists will be able to better share and learn more from each other's experience and mistakes."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>SilverTooth writes " Often , when watching a science documentary or reading an article , it seems that the scientists were executing a well-laid out plan that led to their discovery .
Anyone familiar with the process of scientific discovery realizes that is a far cry from reality .
Scientific discovery is fraught with false starts and blind alleys .
As a result , labs accumulate vast amounts of valuable knowledge on what not to do , and what does not work .
Trouble is , this knowledge is not shared using the usual method of scientific communication : the peer-reviewed article .
It remains within the lab , or at the most shared informally among close colleagues .
As it stands , the scientific culture discourages sharing negative results .
Byte Size Biology reports on a forthcoming journal whose aim is to change this : the Journal of Serendipitous and Unexpected Results .
Hopefully , scientists will be able to better share and learn more from each other 's experience and mistakes .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SilverTooth writes "Often, when watching a science documentary or reading an article, it seems that the scientists were executing a well-laid out plan that led to their discovery.
Anyone familiar with the process of scientific discovery realizes that is a far cry from reality.
Scientific discovery is fraught with false starts and blind alleys.
As a result, labs accumulate vast amounts of valuable knowledge on what not to do, and what does not work.
Trouble is, this knowledge is not shared using the usual method of scientific communication: the peer-reviewed article.
It remains within the lab, or at the most shared informally among close colleagues.
As it stands, the scientific culture discourages sharing negative results.
Byte Size Biology reports on a forthcoming journal whose aim is to change this: the Journal of Serendipitous and Unexpected Results.
Hopefully, scientists will be able to better share and learn more from each other's experience and mistakes.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019652</id>
	<title>Old Problem</title>
	<author>RobinEggs</author>
	<datestamp>1265315700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Trouble is, this knowledge is not shared using the usual method of scientific communication: the peer-reviewed article. It remains within the lab, or at the most shared informally among close colleagues. As it stands, the scientific culture discourages sharing negative results.</p></div><p>This sort of complaint goes back a very long ways, and it's certainly as good a time as any to address it head on.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We have a habit in writing articles published in scientific journals to make the work as finished as possible, to cover all the tracks, to not worry about the blind alleys or to describe how you had the wrong idea first, and so on. So there isn't any place to publish, in a dignified manner, what you actually did in order to get to do the work, although, there has been in these days, some interest in this kind of thing.<br> <br>     - Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize Acceptance Lecture, 1965</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trouble is , this knowledge is not shared using the usual method of scientific communication : the peer-reviewed article .
It remains within the lab , or at the most shared informally among close colleagues .
As it stands , the scientific culture discourages sharing negative results.This sort of complaint goes back a very long ways , and it 's certainly as good a time as any to address it head on.We have a habit in writing articles published in scientific journals to make the work as finished as possible , to cover all the tracks , to not worry about the blind alleys or to describe how you had the wrong idea first , and so on .
So there is n't any place to publish , in a dignified manner , what you actually did in order to get to do the work , although , there has been in these days , some interest in this kind of thing .
- Richard Feynman , Nobel Prize Acceptance Lecture , 1965</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trouble is, this knowledge is not shared using the usual method of scientific communication: the peer-reviewed article.
It remains within the lab, or at the most shared informally among close colleagues.
As it stands, the scientific culture discourages sharing negative results.This sort of complaint goes back a very long ways, and it's certainly as good a time as any to address it head on.We have a habit in writing articles published in scientific journals to make the work as finished as possible, to cover all the tracks, to not worry about the blind alleys or to describe how you had the wrong idea first, and so on.
So there isn't any place to publish, in a dignified manner, what you actually did in order to get to do the work, although, there has been in these days, some interest in this kind of thing.
- Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize Acceptance Lecture, 1965
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31021540</id>
	<title>Re:A great idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265295060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>been tried before, try googling "journal of negative results"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>been tried before , try googling " journal of negative results "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>been tried before, try googling "journal of negative results"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31020228</id>
	<title>some advice</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1265280840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>never attribute to serendipity what can be explained by science</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>never attribute to serendipity what can be explained by science</tokentext>
<sentencetext>never attribute to serendipity what can be explained by science</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019344</id>
	<title>Signal to noise</title>
	<author>LockeOnLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1264964880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most failed results have no useful knowledge in them. Having a huge amount of them is less useful that it sounds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most failed results have no useful knowledge in them .
Having a huge amount of them is less useful that it sounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most failed results have no useful knowledge in them.
Having a huge amount of them is less useful that it sounds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019494</id>
	<title>failed experiment</title>
	<author>InlawBiker</author>
	<datestamp>1264967340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't date Wendy from the admissions office.  Spectacular failure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't date Wendy from the admissions office .
Spectacular failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't date Wendy from the admissions office.
Spectacular failure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019558</id>
	<title>Re:A great idea</title>
	<author>irp</author>
	<datestamp>1265314140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my experience it has nothing to do with egos or competition.</p><p>But it is damn hard to publish something that doesn't work!</p><p>I was recently involved i developing a microfluidic system for diagnostics. Every milestone and sub-problem was solved. But when the final injection molded devices were tested, they failed due to an sort of interesting non-obvious combination of factors. Two issues with publishing this; the problems were very specific to our system and the conclusion could be written in 5 lines of text.</p><p>It would have been like a movie with huge setup, but within the first 3 minutes the hero stumble, break his neck, and dies. End credits. It was a EU founded research project, no more money no more time. You can't get founding to continue a failed project. End of story.</p><p>But my point is, in all my experience as scientist. I've never seen one of my colleagues say "we should hide this", but I've often heard "I would like to tell about this, but I don't know of a paper that would accept it".</p><p>Also when something fails we need to carry on, but now we're behind schedule...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience it has nothing to do with egos or competition.But it is damn hard to publish something that does n't work ! I was recently involved i developing a microfluidic system for diagnostics .
Every milestone and sub-problem was solved .
But when the final injection molded devices were tested , they failed due to an sort of interesting non-obvious combination of factors .
Two issues with publishing this ; the problems were very specific to our system and the conclusion could be written in 5 lines of text.It would have been like a movie with huge setup , but within the first 3 minutes the hero stumble , break his neck , and dies .
End credits .
It was a EU founded research project , no more money no more time .
You ca n't get founding to continue a failed project .
End of story.But my point is , in all my experience as scientist .
I 've never seen one of my colleagues say " we should hide this " , but I 've often heard " I would like to tell about this , but I do n't know of a paper that would accept it " .Also when something fails we need to carry on , but now we 're behind schedule.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience it has nothing to do with egos or competition.But it is damn hard to publish something that doesn't work!I was recently involved i developing a microfluidic system for diagnostics.
Every milestone and sub-problem was solved.
But when the final injection molded devices were tested, they failed due to an sort of interesting non-obvious combination of factors.
Two issues with publishing this; the problems were very specific to our system and the conclusion could be written in 5 lines of text.It would have been like a movie with huge setup, but within the first 3 minutes the hero stumble, break his neck, and dies.
End credits.
It was a EU founded research project, no more money no more time.
You can't get founding to continue a failed project.
End of story.But my point is, in all my experience as scientist.
I've never seen one of my colleagues say "we should hide this", but I've often heard "I would like to tell about this, but I don't know of a paper that would accept it".Also when something fails we need to carry on, but now we're behind schedule...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019498</id>
	<title>Re:Fantastic idea</title>
	<author>swanriversean</author>
	<datestamp>1264967400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
"using statistical analysis developed by economists to try to draw conclusions"
</p><p>
this sounds promising
<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/deadpan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" using statistical analysis developed by economists to try to draw conclusions " this sounds promising /deadpan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
"using statistical analysis developed by economists to try to draw conclusions"

this sounds promising
 /deadpan</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019280</id>
	<title>Technique X fails on problem Y.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264964040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>an article for the first issue? covers all questions</p><p>So are we talking:</p><p><b>Technique X fails on problem Y.</b></p><p>Sue all music downloads fails to stop piracy?</p><p><b>Hypothesis X can't be proven using method Y.</b></p><p>All music downloaders can't be proven to be pirates</p><p><b>Protocol X peforms poorly for task Y.</b></p><p>Suing all music downloaders performs poorly for stopping music piracy</p><p><b>Method X has unexpected fundamental limitations.</b></p><p>Forcing people to buy music only on CD / Tape / Vinyl doesn't appeal to all customers</p><p><b>While investigating X, you discovered Y</b></p><p>While trawling torrent log files for music pirates we also found some great porn</p><p><b>Model X can't capture the behavior of phenomenon Y. </b></p><p>Current Music Business Model can't capture the behaviour of generation Y</p><p><b>Failure X is explained by Y.</b></p><p>Failing to increase revenue is explained by $0.99 tracks on Apple (damn iPod users) an music pirates too (arrrgh!)</p><p><b>Assumption X doesn't hold in domain Y.</b></p><p>Assuming independant music stores will be profitable doesn't hold in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com domain</p><p><b>Event X shouldn't happen, but it does.</b></p><p>People shouldn't want to listen to music for free (damn radio stations, ipods, internet)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>an article for the first issue ?
covers all questionsSo are we talking : Technique X fails on problem Y.Sue all music downloads fails to stop piracy ? Hypothesis X ca n't be proven using method Y.All music downloaders ca n't be proven to be piratesProtocol X peforms poorly for task Y.Suing all music downloaders performs poorly for stopping music piracyMethod X has unexpected fundamental limitations.Forcing people to buy music only on CD / Tape / Vinyl does n't appeal to all customersWhile investigating X , you discovered YWhile trawling torrent log files for music pirates we also found some great pornModel X ca n't capture the behavior of phenomenon Y. Current Music Business Model ca n't capture the behaviour of generation YFailure X is explained by Y.Failing to increase revenue is explained by $ 0.99 tracks on Apple ( damn iPod users ) an music pirates too ( arrrgh !
) Assumption X does n't hold in domain Y.Assuming independant music stores will be profitable does n't hold in the .com domainEvent X should n't happen , but it does.People should n't want to listen to music for free ( damn radio stations , ipods , internet )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>an article for the first issue?
covers all questionsSo are we talking:Technique X fails on problem Y.Sue all music downloads fails to stop piracy?Hypothesis X can't be proven using method Y.All music downloaders can't be proven to be piratesProtocol X peforms poorly for task Y.Suing all music downloaders performs poorly for stopping music piracyMethod X has unexpected fundamental limitations.Forcing people to buy music only on CD / Tape / Vinyl doesn't appeal to all customersWhile investigating X, you discovered YWhile trawling torrent log files for music pirates we also found some great pornModel X can't capture the behavior of phenomenon Y. Current Music Business Model can't capture the behaviour of generation YFailure X is explained by Y.Failing to increase revenue is explained by $0.99 tracks on Apple (damn iPod users) an music pirates too (arrrgh!
)Assumption X doesn't hold in domain Y.Assuming independant music stores will be profitable doesn't hold in the .com domainEvent X shouldn't happen, but it does.People shouldn't want to listen to music for free (damn radio stations, ipods, internet)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31021562</id>
	<title>Re:This is a great idea!</title>
	<author>Shipud</author>
	<datestamp>1265295120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<b>Philosophers, incidentally, say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong</b>. For example, some philosopher or other said it is fundamental to the scientific effort that if an experiment is performed in, say, Stockholm, and then the same experiment is done in, say, Quito, the same results must occur. That is quite false. It is not necessary that science do that; it may be a fact of experience, but it is not necessary. For example, if one of the experiments is to look out at the sky and see the aurora borealis in Stockholm, you do not see it in Quito; that is a different phenomenon. 'But,' you say, 'that is something that has to do with the outside; can you close yourself up in a box in Stockholm and pull down the shade and get any difference?' Surely. If we take a pendulum on a universal joint, and pull it out and let go, then the pendulum will swing almost in a plane, but not quite. Slowly the plane keeps changing in Stockholm, but not in Quito. The blinds are down too. The fact that this happened does not bring on the destruction of science. What is the fundamental hypothesis of science, the fundamental philosophy? We stated it in the first chapter: the sole test of the validity of any idea is the experiment."

-- (Lecture 2, Basic Physics, from the Feynman Lectures on Physics)</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Philosophers , incidentally , say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science , and it is always , so far as one can see , rather naive , and probably wrong .
For example , some philosopher or other said it is fundamental to the scientific effort that if an experiment is performed in , say , Stockholm , and then the same experiment is done in , say , Quito , the same results must occur .
That is quite false .
It is not necessary that science do that ; it may be a fact of experience , but it is not necessary .
For example , if one of the experiments is to look out at the sky and see the aurora borealis in Stockholm , you do not see it in Quito ; that is a different phenomenon .
'But, ' you say , 'that is something that has to do with the outside ; can you close yourself up in a box in Stockholm and pull down the shade and get any difference ?
' Surely .
If we take a pendulum on a universal joint , and pull it out and let go , then the pendulum will swing almost in a plane , but not quite .
Slowly the plane keeps changing in Stockholm , but not in Quito .
The blinds are down too .
The fact that this happened does not bring on the destruction of science .
What is the fundamental hypothesis of science , the fundamental philosophy ?
We stated it in the first chapter : the sole test of the validity of any idea is the experiment .
" -- ( Lecture 2 , Basic Physics , from the Feynman Lectures on Physics )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Philosophers, incidentally, say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong.
For example, some philosopher or other said it is fundamental to the scientific effort that if an experiment is performed in, say, Stockholm, and then the same experiment is done in, say, Quito, the same results must occur.
That is quite false.
It is not necessary that science do that; it may be a fact of experience, but it is not necessary.
For example, if one of the experiments is to look out at the sky and see the aurora borealis in Stockholm, you do not see it in Quito; that is a different phenomenon.
'But,' you say, 'that is something that has to do with the outside; can you close yourself up in a box in Stockholm and pull down the shade and get any difference?
' Surely.
If we take a pendulum on a universal joint, and pull it out and let go, then the pendulum will swing almost in a plane, but not quite.
Slowly the plane keeps changing in Stockholm, but not in Quito.
The blinds are down too.
The fact that this happened does not bring on the destruction of science.
What is the fundamental hypothesis of science, the fundamental philosophy?
We stated it in the first chapter: the sole test of the validity of any idea is the experiment.
"

-- (Lecture 2, Basic Physics, from the Feynman Lectures on Physics)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31021176</id>
	<title>Re:Fantastic idea</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1265292600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Stripped to its bare, ideological minimum, science is nothing more than observation. You can extrapolate the implications of those observations, but in the end everything we know in science can be traced down to an observation. That is why intelligent design fails at being a science: while it technically might be true, it is not an observation, it is a guess. FSM is not an observation it is a (silly) guess.<br> <br>

All the trappings of science, the double-blind experiments, the peer review, etc. are merely ways to improve the accuracy of our observations. It is really beautiful, actually, to realize that for any fact in science you can say, "how do we know this?" and get back to the original observations that show it to be true. This is not something you can do with religion, or philosophy, or literary criticism.</p></div><p>Without philosophy, observation is only historical cataloging; mere correlation.  Recognition of Causation requires something outside of observation: "silly" guesses.  Even after doing hundreds of observations, we'll never know if any of the silly guesses are true, but we'll know which ones turn out false.  But, pure philosophy has one on science: certain things can be proved true with mere thought experiment.<br>
Oblig. XKCD: <a href="http://xkcd.com/435/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/435/</a> [xkcd.com] But he forgot the logician on the far right telling the mathematician to stuff it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stripped to its bare , ideological minimum , science is nothing more than observation .
You can extrapolate the implications of those observations , but in the end everything we know in science can be traced down to an observation .
That is why intelligent design fails at being a science : while it technically might be true , it is not an observation , it is a guess .
FSM is not an observation it is a ( silly ) guess .
All the trappings of science , the double-blind experiments , the peer review , etc .
are merely ways to improve the accuracy of our observations .
It is really beautiful , actually , to realize that for any fact in science you can say , " how do we know this ?
" and get back to the original observations that show it to be true .
This is not something you can do with religion , or philosophy , or literary criticism.Without philosophy , observation is only historical cataloging ; mere correlation .
Recognition of Causation requires something outside of observation : " silly " guesses .
Even after doing hundreds of observations , we 'll never know if any of the silly guesses are true , but we 'll know which ones turn out false .
But , pure philosophy has one on science : certain things can be proved true with mere thought experiment .
Oblig. XKCD : http : //xkcd.com/435/ [ xkcd.com ] But he forgot the logician on the far right telling the mathematician to stuff it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stripped to its bare, ideological minimum, science is nothing more than observation.
You can extrapolate the implications of those observations, but in the end everything we know in science can be traced down to an observation.
That is why intelligent design fails at being a science: while it technically might be true, it is not an observation, it is a guess.
FSM is not an observation it is a (silly) guess.
All the trappings of science, the double-blind experiments, the peer review, etc.
are merely ways to improve the accuracy of our observations.
It is really beautiful, actually, to realize that for any fact in science you can say, "how do we know this?
" and get back to the original observations that show it to be true.
This is not something you can do with religion, or philosophy, or literary criticism.Without philosophy, observation is only historical cataloging; mere correlation.
Recognition of Causation requires something outside of observation: "silly" guesses.
Even after doing hundreds of observations, we'll never know if any of the silly guesses are true, but we'll know which ones turn out false.
But, pure philosophy has one on science: certain things can be proved true with mere thought experiment.
Oblig. XKCD: http://xkcd.com/435/ [xkcd.com] But he forgot the logician on the far right telling the mathematician to stuff it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31020258</id>
	<title>Is that a so good idea ?</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1265281380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't help but remember Sony founder explaining how they were looking for ways of doing efficient small transistors with various materials and that they had learned from Bell labs that silicium gave very poor result so they spent minimum resources on that.<br> <br>
I can't help also wonder if this is a good use of "peer reviewing" which has a kind of shortage, or so I heard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't help but remember Sony founder explaining how they were looking for ways of doing efficient small transistors with various materials and that they had learned from Bell labs that silicium gave very poor result so they spent minimum resources on that .
I ca n't help also wonder if this is a good use of " peer reviewing " which has a kind of shortage , or so I heard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't help but remember Sony founder explaining how they were looking for ways of doing efficient small transistors with various materials and that they had learned from Bell labs that silicium gave very poor result so they spent minimum resources on that.
I can't help also wonder if this is a good use of "peer reviewing" which has a kind of shortage, or so I heard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31021220</id>
	<title>Good Idea, Not the First</title>
	<author>pz</author>
	<datestamp>1265292900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This idea was already executed a while ago by the <a href="http://www.jnr-eeb.org/index.php/jnr" title="jnr-eeb.org">Journal of Negative Results in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, the </a> [jnr-eeb.org]<a href="http://www.jnrbm.com/" title="jnrbm.com">Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine</a> [jnrbm.com], the <a href="http://www.haikya.us/rsingh/" title="haikya.us">Journal of Negative Results in Speech and Audio Sciences</a> [haikya.us] and probably a few others that Google will help you find, just as it helped me find.  But, as I recall, even <a href="http://www.plos.org/" title="plos.org">PLoS</a> [plos.org] had publishing negative results in its charter and specifically <a href="http://www.plosone.org/" title="plosone.org">PLoS ONE</a> [plosone.org] encouraged them, being all-inclusive.</p><p>The problem?  Most of them (except for PLoS and PLoS ONE) have a very low impact factor because although negative results are important, they aren't sexy in the least.  If they were sexy, they would have been published in more mainstream journals.  Because publishing a paper requires significant effort, a scientist is unlikely to spend his most precious resource -- time -- publishing a negative result if he can publish a positive one.  Positive results get referenced, negative ones, by-and-large, do not.  References in important journals lead to advancement as a scientist through grants, promotion, etc.  So, unless the result is going to have significant impact -- like contradicting a previous result, or disproving dogma -- there's little motivation for a scientist to expend the effort to write up and publish a negative result, rather than do more research.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This idea was already executed a while ago by the Journal of Negative Results in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology , the [ jnr-eeb.org ] Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine [ jnrbm.com ] , the Journal of Negative Results in Speech and Audio Sciences [ haikya.us ] and probably a few others that Google will help you find , just as it helped me find .
But , as I recall , even PLoS [ plos.org ] had publishing negative results in its charter and specifically PLoS ONE [ plosone.org ] encouraged them , being all-inclusive.The problem ?
Most of them ( except for PLoS and PLoS ONE ) have a very low impact factor because although negative results are important , they are n't sexy in the least .
If they were sexy , they would have been published in more mainstream journals .
Because publishing a paper requires significant effort , a scientist is unlikely to spend his most precious resource -- time -- publishing a negative result if he can publish a positive one .
Positive results get referenced , negative ones , by-and-large , do not .
References in important journals lead to advancement as a scientist through grants , promotion , etc .
So , unless the result is going to have significant impact -- like contradicting a previous result , or disproving dogma -- there 's little motivation for a scientist to expend the effort to write up and publish a negative result , rather than do more research .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>This idea was already executed a while ago by the Journal of Negative Results in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, the  [jnr-eeb.org]Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine [jnrbm.com], the Journal of Negative Results in Speech and Audio Sciences [haikya.us] and probably a few others that Google will help you find, just as it helped me find.
But, as I recall, even PLoS [plos.org] had publishing negative results in its charter and specifically PLoS ONE [plosone.org] encouraged them, being all-inclusive.The problem?
Most of them (except for PLoS and PLoS ONE) have a very low impact factor because although negative results are important, they aren't sexy in the least.
If they were sexy, they would have been published in more mainstream journals.
Because publishing a paper requires significant effort, a scientist is unlikely to spend his most precious resource -- time -- publishing a negative result if he can publish a positive one.
Positive results get referenced, negative ones, by-and-large, do not.
References in important journals lead to advancement as a scientist through grants, promotion, etc.
So, unless the result is going to have significant impact -- like contradicting a previous result, or disproving dogma -- there's little motivation for a scientist to expend the effort to write up and publish a negative result, rather than do more research.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31020098</id>
	<title>Just like post-mortem reports in engineering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265278440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Engineers had similar reports long ago, and they are the most interesting stuff you can find. An educated investigation of failure is much more important for me (for studying purposes), than pure success. There are many interesting ways to fail. Just look at industrial accidents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Engineers had similar reports long ago , and they are the most interesting stuff you can find .
An educated investigation of failure is much more important for me ( for studying purposes ) , than pure success .
There are many interesting ways to fail .
Just look at industrial accidents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Engineers had similar reports long ago, and they are the most interesting stuff you can find.
An educated investigation of failure is much more important for me (for studying purposes), than pure success.
There are many interesting ways to fail.
Just look at industrial accidents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31021152</id>
	<title>Re:Great scientists weren't very scientific</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1265292420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;See Bell's theorum which shows that it can't just be hidden variables.</p><p>No, it means there's (probably) no NON-LOCAL hidden variables. Given that nobody really understands what happens during wavefunction collapse (or rather, the mechanism behind it), it's hard to say that he's necessarily wrong. Quantum Mechanics are deeply weird, and science has been getting by describing how they work, rather than why.</p><p>I'm not sure why you're trying to claim that scientists can't use intuition in science - if that were the case, nothing would ever get done. He put forth the EPR Paradox, and experimentation eventually proved it wrong. That's how science is supposed to go.</p><p>On the other side, Hoyle famously rejected the notion of the Big Bang because he believed it would imply God existed, and he fought tooth and nail against it.<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred\_Hoyle#Rejection\_of\_the\_Big\_Bang" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred\_Hoyle#Rejection\_of\_the\_Big\_Bang</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>&gt;&gt;Isaac Newton was a horrible little man. Ill tempered, neurotic, and did wild experiments that he was lucky didn't blind him. Let's not forget the nastiness with Leibniz.</p><p>Scientists can't get into nasty academic arguments? Really.</p><p>&gt;&gt;Galileo had the social skills of a village idiot</p><p>Scientists have to have social skills, now? What planet do you live on?</p><p>Your claim that these guys were not scientific may be valid (Galileo ignored evidence in favor of his theory), but your arguments against them have nothing to do with anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; See Bell 's theorum which shows that it ca n't just be hidden variables.No , it means there 's ( probably ) no NON-LOCAL hidden variables .
Given that nobody really understands what happens during wavefunction collapse ( or rather , the mechanism behind it ) , it 's hard to say that he 's necessarily wrong .
Quantum Mechanics are deeply weird , and science has been getting by describing how they work , rather than why.I 'm not sure why you 're trying to claim that scientists ca n't use intuition in science - if that were the case , nothing would ever get done .
He put forth the EPR Paradox , and experimentation eventually proved it wrong .
That 's how science is supposed to go.On the other side , Hoyle famously rejected the notion of the Big Bang because he believed it would imply God existed , and he fought tooth and nail against it.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred \ _Hoyle # Rejection \ _of \ _the \ _Big \ _Bang [ wikipedia.org ] &gt; &gt; Isaac Newton was a horrible little man .
Ill tempered , neurotic , and did wild experiments that he was lucky did n't blind him .
Let 's not forget the nastiness with Leibniz.Scientists ca n't get into nasty academic arguments ?
Really. &gt; &gt; Galileo had the social skills of a village idiotScientists have to have social skills , now ?
What planet do you live on ? Your claim that these guys were not scientific may be valid ( Galileo ignored evidence in favor of his theory ) , but your arguments against them have nothing to do with anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;See Bell's theorum which shows that it can't just be hidden variables.No, it means there's (probably) no NON-LOCAL hidden variables.
Given that nobody really understands what happens during wavefunction collapse (or rather, the mechanism behind it), it's hard to say that he's necessarily wrong.
Quantum Mechanics are deeply weird, and science has been getting by describing how they work, rather than why.I'm not sure why you're trying to claim that scientists can't use intuition in science - if that were the case, nothing would ever get done.
He put forth the EPR Paradox, and experimentation eventually proved it wrong.
That's how science is supposed to go.On the other side, Hoyle famously rejected the notion of the Big Bang because he believed it would imply God existed, and he fought tooth and nail against it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred\_Hoyle#Rejection\_of\_the\_Big\_Bang [wikipedia.org]&gt;&gt;Isaac Newton was a horrible little man.
Ill tempered, neurotic, and did wild experiments that he was lucky didn't blind him.
Let's not forget the nastiness with Leibniz.Scientists can't get into nasty academic arguments?
Really.&gt;&gt;Galileo had the social skills of a village idiotScientists have to have social skills, now?
What planet do you live on?Your claim that these guys were not scientific may be valid (Galileo ignored evidence in favor of his theory), but your arguments against them have nothing to do with anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019230</id>
	<title>Fantastic idea</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1264963380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes talking to people with very pro-sciene views, you get the idea that "science" is either an accumulated set of known facts or a perfect method which, because of peer review, is infallible at learning absolute truth.
</p><p>In reality, it's just a set of processes that we've developed and which has been generally more successful at producing helpful results than other methods.  No reason to think that the way we go about it couldn't be improved.  I can't imagine that failing to share the results failed experiments doesn't sometimes result in the loss of important information.
</p><p>Coincidentally I just saw <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/jamie\_heywood\_the\_big\_idea\_my\_brother\_inspired.html" title="ted.com">this talk</a> [ted.com] which raises the question whether helpful data can be gathered even if it's not gathered through conventional rigorous scientific methods.  It seems like an interesting idea-- they're essentially gathering lots of data from various sources and using statistical analysis developed by economists to try to draw conclusions.  My biggest concern would be purposeful manipulation by someone with an agenda.
</p><p>But anyway, all of this is to say that this has gotten me thinking about how the scientific process may still be open to some innovation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes talking to people with very pro-sciene views , you get the idea that " science " is either an accumulated set of known facts or a perfect method which , because of peer review , is infallible at learning absolute truth .
In reality , it 's just a set of processes that we 've developed and which has been generally more successful at producing helpful results than other methods .
No reason to think that the way we go about it could n't be improved .
I ca n't imagine that failing to share the results failed experiments does n't sometimes result in the loss of important information .
Coincidentally I just saw this talk [ ted.com ] which raises the question whether helpful data can be gathered even if it 's not gathered through conventional rigorous scientific methods .
It seems like an interesting idea-- they 're essentially gathering lots of data from various sources and using statistical analysis developed by economists to try to draw conclusions .
My biggest concern would be purposeful manipulation by someone with an agenda .
But anyway , all of this is to say that this has gotten me thinking about how the scientific process may still be open to some innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes talking to people with very pro-sciene views, you get the idea that "science" is either an accumulated set of known facts or a perfect method which, because of peer review, is infallible at learning absolute truth.
In reality, it's just a set of processes that we've developed and which has been generally more successful at producing helpful results than other methods.
No reason to think that the way we go about it couldn't be improved.
I can't imagine that failing to share the results failed experiments doesn't sometimes result in the loss of important information.
Coincidentally I just saw this talk [ted.com] which raises the question whether helpful data can be gathered even if it's not gathered through conventional rigorous scientific methods.
It seems like an interesting idea-- they're essentially gathering lots of data from various sources and using statistical analysis developed by economists to try to draw conclusions.
My biggest concern would be purposeful manipulation by someone with an agenda.
But anyway, all of this is to say that this has gotten me thinking about how the scientific process may still be open to some innovation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019276</id>
	<title>Problem is</title>
	<author>JanneM</author>
	<datestamp>1264963980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with any change or reform of the publishing system is that publications are so important for the individual scientist. A paper isn't just a neat way to disseminate results. They are your work evaluation and your CV; they are keeping the score as it were. Where you publish and how often you publish directly determines where - or if - you work another year or two down the road.</p><p>And even a short paper takes a lot of time and effort to write. For an informal "don't do that; we tried and it didn't work"-email to a colleague you could just jot down three or four paragraphs after lunch. Make a paper out of it and you have weeks or more of work ahead of you - looking up other previous published reports on the same kind of experiment; doing your best to figure out and explain the exact causes; square your (lack of) results with the apparent success of other groups that did something similar; make neat, clear graphs and illustrations as needed; get formal permission from your lab and your funding agency (and your co-authors labs and funding sources) to actually publish the thing. Then revise and edit the paper multiple times after comments from your co-athours and reviewers.</p><p>So, getting good publications is vital for your ability to make rent and buy food for your family. Writing publications take a lot of time and effort - time that is pretty limited. So, even though the <i>will</i> to spread the word on a negative result may be there, chances is, writing it up will be relegated to the "when I've got a bit of spare time"-pile, where it will likely sit until well after retirement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with any change or reform of the publishing system is that publications are so important for the individual scientist .
A paper is n't just a neat way to disseminate results .
They are your work evaluation and your CV ; they are keeping the score as it were .
Where you publish and how often you publish directly determines where - or if - you work another year or two down the road.And even a short paper takes a lot of time and effort to write .
For an informal " do n't do that ; we tried and it did n't work " -email to a colleague you could just jot down three or four paragraphs after lunch .
Make a paper out of it and you have weeks or more of work ahead of you - looking up other previous published reports on the same kind of experiment ; doing your best to figure out and explain the exact causes ; square your ( lack of ) results with the apparent success of other groups that did something similar ; make neat , clear graphs and illustrations as needed ; get formal permission from your lab and your funding agency ( and your co-authors labs and funding sources ) to actually publish the thing .
Then revise and edit the paper multiple times after comments from your co-athours and reviewers.So , getting good publications is vital for your ability to make rent and buy food for your family .
Writing publications take a lot of time and effort - time that is pretty limited .
So , even though the will to spread the word on a negative result may be there , chances is , writing it up will be relegated to the " when I 've got a bit of spare time " -pile , where it will likely sit until well after retirement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with any change or reform of the publishing system is that publications are so important for the individual scientist.
A paper isn't just a neat way to disseminate results.
They are your work evaluation and your CV; they are keeping the score as it were.
Where you publish and how often you publish directly determines where - or if - you work another year or two down the road.And even a short paper takes a lot of time and effort to write.
For an informal "don't do that; we tried and it didn't work"-email to a colleague you could just jot down three or four paragraphs after lunch.
Make a paper out of it and you have weeks or more of work ahead of you - looking up other previous published reports on the same kind of experiment; doing your best to figure out and explain the exact causes; square your (lack of) results with the apparent success of other groups that did something similar; make neat, clear graphs and illustrations as needed; get formal permission from your lab and your funding agency (and your co-authors labs and funding sources) to actually publish the thing.
Then revise and edit the paper multiple times after comments from your co-athours and reviewers.So, getting good publications is vital for your ability to make rent and buy food for your family.
Writing publications take a lot of time and effort - time that is pretty limited.
So, even though the will to spread the word on a negative result may be there, chances is, writing it up will be relegated to the "when I've got a bit of spare time"-pile, where it will likely sit until well after retirement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019556</id>
	<title>"what not work".</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1265314080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe on that list of things that "not work" are things that never worked because the experiment was not well designed.</p><p>Is my undestanding that the democracy world is better because we don't firmly control what people experiment.  So people are free to try things that "don't work".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe on that list of things that " not work " are things that never worked because the experiment was not well designed.Is my undestanding that the democracy world is better because we do n't firmly control what people experiment .
So people are free to try things that " do n't work " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe on that list of things that "not work" are things that never worked because the experiment was not well designed.Is my undestanding that the democracy world is better because we don't firmly control what people experiment.
So people are free to try things that "don't work".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31020028</id>
	<title>Re:failed experiment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265277540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you are basing this on one datum? Have you learned NOTHING??? Go back and try again and see if you get the same outcome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you are basing this on one datum ?
Have you learned NOTHING ? ? ?
Go back and try again and see if you get the same outcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you are basing this on one datum?
Have you learned NOTHING???
Go back and try again and see if you get the same outcome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019234</id>
	<title>Even embarrassing ones?</title>
	<author>Asadullah Ahmad</author>
	<datestamp>1264963380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope they get some courage and post even the embarrassing results and experiments. Will remove the illusion that "Scientists" and "stupidity" can't appear in one sentence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope they get some courage and post even the embarrassing results and experiments .
Will remove the illusion that " Scientists " and " stupidity " ca n't appear in one sentence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope they get some courage and post even the embarrassing results and experiments.
Will remove the illusion that "Scientists" and "stupidity" can't appear in one sentence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019636</id>
	<title>Re:Great scientists weren't very scientific</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265315460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> which shows that it can't just be hidden variables</p></div><p>Einstein may still have been correct.</p><p>Bell's Theorem proved that the effects of quantum physics cannot be both deterministic (hidden variables) AND adhere to the Principle of Locality.  There are indications that the Principle of Locality is incorrect.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>which shows that it ca n't just be hidden variablesEinstein may still have been correct.Bell 's Theorem proved that the effects of quantum physics can not be both deterministic ( hidden variables ) AND adhere to the Principle of Locality .
There are indications that the Principle of Locality is incorrect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> which shows that it can't just be hidden variablesEinstein may still have been correct.Bell's Theorem proved that the effects of quantum physics cannot be both deterministic (hidden variables) AND adhere to the Principle of Locality.
There are indications that the Principle of Locality is incorrect.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019462</id>
	<title>Re:Signal to noise</title>
	<author>Ignatius D'Lusional</author>
	<datestamp>1264966800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sometimes the noise is the result of too many signals at once; if you can't decipher the meaningful data from the meaningless, the transmission will often be ignored completely. Seeing that other people have already done what you have done helps you to determine the overall accuracy of your experiment in terms of relative experiences, and may even spark people to do *only* things that have not yet been tried yet. It's just a matter of collecting and sharing all of the "negative" data that has and will be published.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes the noise is the result of too many signals at once ; if you ca n't decipher the meaningful data from the meaningless , the transmission will often be ignored completely .
Seeing that other people have already done what you have done helps you to determine the overall accuracy of your experiment in terms of relative experiences , and may even spark people to do * only * things that have not yet been tried yet .
It 's just a matter of collecting and sharing all of the " negative " data that has and will be published .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes the noise is the result of too many signals at once; if you can't decipher the meaningful data from the meaningless, the transmission will often be ignored completely.
Seeing that other people have already done what you have done helps you to determine the overall accuracy of your experiment in terms of relative experiences, and may even spark people to do *only* things that have not yet been tried yet.
It's just a matter of collecting and sharing all of the "negative" data that has and will be published.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019364</id>
	<title>This is a great idea!</title>
	<author>Dr\_Ish</author>
	<datestamp>1264965300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the things that many scientists lack, is a good grounding in the Philosophy of Science. The public version of science, largely pushed by science teachers has an origin in the Vienna Circle of Logical Positivists. This is now largely known to be problematic, but is still the prevailing view. Folks should read Feyerabend's &lt;a href="http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=8y-FVtrKeSYC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PR7&amp;dq=\%22Feyerabend\%22+\%22Against+method\%22+&amp;ots=vBXF8-Qt5G&amp;sig=glkJVN6Pjfe3wLmKeTwPGE6-fgk#v=onepage&amp;q=&amp;f=false"&gt;*Against Method* &lt;/a&gt;, or Ravetz's &lt;a href="http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Knowledge-Its-Social-Problems/dp/1560008512"&gt;*Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems*&lt;/a&gt; for a more realistic view.<br><br>As a scientist, I can also tell tales about how the scientific method gets distorted by ideology. When I was in grad school, I was working on a complex set of problems that were a horror -- a week doing eight hours a day pumping numbers into a scientific calculator is not my idea of fun. However, back then, it was a necessary evil. So, I was about to have to do another horror week with the calculator, which I did not want to do, so I was wasting time and did something silly. It turned out to be a great idea. It gave a whole new method to solve the problem type at hand. A number of other people had a hand in the final paper, but I got to be first author. Unfortunately, as only one author amongst many. The paper made claims about the hypotheses that was being tested, I objected very strongly to this -- there was no hypothesis, but we just got lucky. However, there is a paper with my name on in, published in the 20th Century, that contains claims about what we discovered which are false, at least with respect to hypotheses and all that stuff, in order to ensure that we were following someones idea of the scientific method. It irks me even today. Fortunately, a book about the issue now gives a more accurate account. However, there is no doubt that scientific ideology can drive out the truth. Thus, what is proposed here is a good idea. Telling the truth (even if it does not conform to the ideologically driven official method) is something I teach my grad students even today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the things that many scientists lack , is a good grounding in the Philosophy of Science .
The public version of science , largely pushed by science teachers has an origin in the Vienna Circle of Logical Positivists .
This is now largely known to be problematic , but is still the prevailing view .
Folks should read Feyerabend 's * Against Method * , or Ravetz 's * Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems * for a more realistic view.As a scientist , I can also tell tales about how the scientific method gets distorted by ideology .
When I was in grad school , I was working on a complex set of problems that were a horror -- a week doing eight hours a day pumping numbers into a scientific calculator is not my idea of fun .
However , back then , it was a necessary evil .
So , I was about to have to do another horror week with the calculator , which I did not want to do , so I was wasting time and did something silly .
It turned out to be a great idea .
It gave a whole new method to solve the problem type at hand .
A number of other people had a hand in the final paper , but I got to be first author .
Unfortunately , as only one author amongst many .
The paper made claims about the hypotheses that was being tested , I objected very strongly to this -- there was no hypothesis , but we just got lucky .
However , there is a paper with my name on in , published in the 20th Century , that contains claims about what we discovered which are false , at least with respect to hypotheses and all that stuff , in order to ensure that we were following someones idea of the scientific method .
It irks me even today .
Fortunately , a book about the issue now gives a more accurate account .
However , there is no doubt that scientific ideology can drive out the truth .
Thus , what is proposed here is a good idea .
Telling the truth ( even if it does not conform to the ideologically driven official method ) is something I teach my grad students even today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the things that many scientists lack, is a good grounding in the Philosophy of Science.
The public version of science, largely pushed by science teachers has an origin in the Vienna Circle of Logical Positivists.
This is now largely known to be problematic, but is still the prevailing view.
Folks should read Feyerabend's *Against Method* , or Ravetz's *Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems* for a more realistic view.As a scientist, I can also tell tales about how the scientific method gets distorted by ideology.
When I was in grad school, I was working on a complex set of problems that were a horror -- a week doing eight hours a day pumping numbers into a scientific calculator is not my idea of fun.
However, back then, it was a necessary evil.
So, I was about to have to do another horror week with the calculator, which I did not want to do, so I was wasting time and did something silly.
It turned out to be a great idea.
It gave a whole new method to solve the problem type at hand.
A number of other people had a hand in the final paper, but I got to be first author.
Unfortunately, as only one author amongst many.
The paper made claims about the hypotheses that was being tested, I objected very strongly to this -- there was no hypothesis, but we just got lucky.
However, there is a paper with my name on in, published in the 20th Century, that contains claims about what we discovered which are false, at least with respect to hypotheses and all that stuff, in order to ensure that we were following someones idea of the scientific method.
It irks me even today.
Fortunately, a book about the issue now gives a more accurate account.
However, there is no doubt that scientific ideology can drive out the truth.
Thus, what is proposed here is a good idea.
Telling the truth (even if it does not conform to the ideologically driven official method) is something I teach my grad students even today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019298</id>
	<title>Re:Fantastic idea</title>
	<author>Ed Peepers</author>
	<datestamp>1264964220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gleaning information from very large data sets is very possible, even if gathered in ways that are not strictly rigorous.  However, we have to be extremely cautious when we interpret the findings.  One of the first things you learn in Stats or Research Methods 101 is that everything becomes significant in a large enough data set.  If you have billions of data points and pick any two variables, you should find a statistically significant relationship.  It won't mean anything, but someone with an agenda OR someone who doesn't know what they are doing can report it and make it sound real.  With great power comes great responsibility!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gleaning information from very large data sets is very possible , even if gathered in ways that are not strictly rigorous .
However , we have to be extremely cautious when we interpret the findings .
One of the first things you learn in Stats or Research Methods 101 is that everything becomes significant in a large enough data set .
If you have billions of data points and pick any two variables , you should find a statistically significant relationship .
It wo n't mean anything , but someone with an agenda OR someone who does n't know what they are doing can report it and make it sound real .
With great power comes great responsibility !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gleaning information from very large data sets is very possible, even if gathered in ways that are not strictly rigorous.
However, we have to be extremely cautious when we interpret the findings.
One of the first things you learn in Stats or Research Methods 101 is that everything becomes significant in a large enough data set.
If you have billions of data points and pick any two variables, you should find a statistically significant relationship.
It won't mean anything, but someone with an agenda OR someone who doesn't know what they are doing can report it and make it sound real.
With great power comes great responsibility!
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019170</id>
	<title>This could be good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264962600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No longer having to remake the broken wheel each time. Or it could lead to a bad side effect having a positive outcome like Viagra and Zyban. Both of these were not what was planned but had amazing results. Hell, penicillin saves millions and if I remember right, was a total mistake at the beginning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No longer having to remake the broken wheel each time .
Or it could lead to a bad side effect having a positive outcome like Viagra and Zyban .
Both of these were not what was planned but had amazing results .
Hell , penicillin saves millions and if I remember right , was a total mistake at the beginning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No longer having to remake the broken wheel each time.
Or it could lead to a bad side effect having a positive outcome like Viagra and Zyban.
Both of these were not what was planned but had amazing results.
Hell, penicillin saves millions and if I remember right, was a total mistake at the beginning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019750</id>
	<title>More of the same?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265316900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Such a journal already exists for biomedicine:</p><p>http://www.jnrbm.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Such a journal already exists for biomedicine : http : //www.jnrbm.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Such a journal already exists for biomedicine:http://www.jnrbm.com/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31022048</id>
	<title>Re:Great scientists weren't very scientific</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1265297760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I might argue that the people you're talking about weren't even "scientists" in the modern sense.  What they practiced might be better described as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural\_philosophy" title="wikipedia.org">natural philosophy</a> [wikipedia.org].  It's not as though Einstein was remembered for his lab experiments.  Essentially his innovation was that he re-imagined what it meant to "measure" something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I might argue that the people you 're talking about were n't even " scientists " in the modern sense .
What they practiced might be better described as natural philosophy [ wikipedia.org ] .
It 's not as though Einstein was remembered for his lab experiments .
Essentially his innovation was that he re-imagined what it meant to " measure " something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I might argue that the people you're talking about weren't even "scientists" in the modern sense.
What they practiced might be better described as natural philosophy [wikipedia.org].
It's not as though Einstein was remembered for his lab experiments.
Essentially his innovation was that he re-imagined what it meant to "measure" something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31020076</id>
	<title>Fr@ist ps0t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265278260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">members are Of the fo0nders of</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>members are Of the fo0nders of [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>members are Of the fo0nders of [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019690</id>
	<title>Re:Great scientists weren't very scientific</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265316180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet everyone knows who those people are, but nobody knows who you are. Why is that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet everyone knows who those people are , but nobody knows who you are .
Why is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet everyone knows who those people are, but nobody knows who you are.
Why is that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31022024</id>
	<title>Re:A great idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265297640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It would have been like a movie with huge setup, but within the first 3 minutes the hero stumble, break his neck, and dies.</p></div><p>Lawrence of Arabia?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would have been like a movie with huge setup , but within the first 3 minutes the hero stumble , break his neck , and dies.Lawrence of Arabia ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would have been like a movie with huge setup, but within the first 3 minutes the hero stumble, break his neck, and dies.Lawrence of Arabia?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019554</id>
	<title>Re:Fantastic idea</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1265314080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stripped to its bare, ideological minimum, science is nothing more than observation.  You can extrapolate the implications of those observations, but in the end everything we know in science can be traced down to an observation.  That is why intelligent design fails at being a science: while it technically might be true, it is not an observation, it is a guess.  FSM is not an observation  it is a (silly) guess.<br> <br>
All the trappings of science, the double-blind experiments, the peer review, etc. are merely ways to improve the accuracy of our observations.  It is really beautiful, actually, to realize that for any fact in science you can say, "how do we know this?" and get back to the original observations that show it to be true.  This is not something you can do with religion, or philosophy, or literary criticism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stripped to its bare , ideological minimum , science is nothing more than observation .
You can extrapolate the implications of those observations , but in the end everything we know in science can be traced down to an observation .
That is why intelligent design fails at being a science : while it technically might be true , it is not an observation , it is a guess .
FSM is not an observation it is a ( silly ) guess .
All the trappings of science , the double-blind experiments , the peer review , etc .
are merely ways to improve the accuracy of our observations .
It is really beautiful , actually , to realize that for any fact in science you can say , " how do we know this ?
" and get back to the original observations that show it to be true .
This is not something you can do with religion , or philosophy , or literary criticism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stripped to its bare, ideological minimum, science is nothing more than observation.
You can extrapolate the implications of those observations, but in the end everything we know in science can be traced down to an observation.
That is why intelligent design fails at being a science: while it technically might be true, it is not an observation, it is a guess.
FSM is not an observation  it is a (silly) guess.
All the trappings of science, the double-blind experiments, the peer review, etc.
are merely ways to improve the accuracy of our observations.
It is really beautiful, actually, to realize that for any fact in science you can say, "how do we know this?
" and get back to the original observations that show it to be true.
This is not something you can do with religion, or philosophy, or literary criticism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019264</id>
	<title>Re:A great idea</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1264963860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given failed results wouldn't need as much verification, it may be possible for researchers to submit under pseudonyms to avoid embarrassment, and I should think not all researchers are so full of themselves to fear helping others. I agree we won't see the best stories reach this journal, but if nothing else it will be a good way for the honest, cooperative researchers to know they aren't alone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given failed results would n't need as much verification , it may be possible for researchers to submit under pseudonyms to avoid embarrassment , and I should think not all researchers are so full of themselves to fear helping others .
I agree we wo n't see the best stories reach this journal , but if nothing else it will be a good way for the honest , cooperative researchers to know they are n't alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given failed results wouldn't need as much verification, it may be possible for researchers to submit under pseudonyms to avoid embarrassment, and I should think not all researchers are so full of themselves to fear helping others.
I agree we won't see the best stories reach this journal, but if nothing else it will be a good way for the honest, cooperative researchers to know they aren't alone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31022314</id>
	<title>When will they publish the article...</title>
	<author>rnturn</author>
	<datestamp>1265299020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... that explains how the whole Mentos+soda thing was actually a failed attempt at cold fusion?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... that explains how the whole Mentos + soda thing was actually a failed attempt at cold fusion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... that explains how the whole Mentos+soda thing was actually a failed attempt at cold fusion?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31020606</id>
	<title>Semantic games?</title>
	<author>hansraj</author>
	<datestamp>1265285700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love how people often point out "you can't prove a negative" or "you can't publish negative results". Turns out that you are very wrong if you think that either is true.</p><p>At first sight it appears that the idea behind this journal is to share failed attempts. But look at the kind of examples the website would like you to prove: "Prove that method X does not work for problem Y." This is *not* a failed attempt. You succeeded in proving something. Some great papers dealing with P?=NP problem prove exactly this kind of thing. How about the proof that you can't put real numbers into a list and so they are uncountably many?</p><p>The usual problem with a "failed attempt" is that something does not work the way you had hoped for. Not that you discover that something won't work generally. Those latter kind of statements require much more sophistication to prove.</p><p>Proving the negation of X is not the same as not being able to prove X, and vice-versa.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love how people often point out " you ca n't prove a negative " or " you ca n't publish negative results " .
Turns out that you are very wrong if you think that either is true.At first sight it appears that the idea behind this journal is to share failed attempts .
But look at the kind of examples the website would like you to prove : " Prove that method X does not work for problem Y .
" This is * not * a failed attempt .
You succeeded in proving something .
Some great papers dealing with P ? = NP problem prove exactly this kind of thing .
How about the proof that you ca n't put real numbers into a list and so they are uncountably many ? The usual problem with a " failed attempt " is that something does not work the way you had hoped for .
Not that you discover that something wo n't work generally .
Those latter kind of statements require much more sophistication to prove.Proving the negation of X is not the same as not being able to prove X , and vice-versa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love how people often point out "you can't prove a negative" or "you can't publish negative results".
Turns out that you are very wrong if you think that either is true.At first sight it appears that the idea behind this journal is to share failed attempts.
But look at the kind of examples the website would like you to prove: "Prove that method X does not work for problem Y.
" This is *not* a failed attempt.
You succeeded in proving something.
Some great papers dealing with P?=NP problem prove exactly this kind of thing.
How about the proof that you can't put real numbers into a list and so they are uncountably many?The usual problem with a "failed attempt" is that something does not work the way you had hoped for.
Not that you discover that something won't work generally.
Those latter kind of statements require much more sophistication to prove.Proving the negation of X is not the same as not being able to prove X, and vice-versa.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31021580</id>
	<title>Re:A great idea</title>
	<author>bkr1\_2k</author>
	<datestamp>1265295240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But my point is, in all my experience as scientist. I've never seen one of my colleagues say "we should hide this", but I've often heard "I would like to tell about this, but I don't know of a paper that would accept it".</i></p><p>Isn't that the point of this journal?  To be a place for exactly that type of publication?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But my point is , in all my experience as scientist .
I 've never seen one of my colleagues say " we should hide this " , but I 've often heard " I would like to tell about this , but I do n't know of a paper that would accept it " .Is n't that the point of this journal ?
To be a place for exactly that type of publication ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But my point is, in all my experience as scientist.
I've never seen one of my colleagues say "we should hide this", but I've often heard "I would like to tell about this, but I don't know of a paper that would accept it".Isn't that the point of this journal?
To be a place for exactly that type of publication?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31026230</id>
	<title>Re:Fantastic idea</title>
	<author>Mr. Slippery</author>
	<datestamp>1265274840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Do you think "Climate Scientists" have the ability to run scientific experiments?</p></div></blockquote><p>No, but neither do astronomers, cosmologists, epidemiologists, paleontologists...

</p><p>The ability to run experiments is not a necessary condition for a field to be a science.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think " Climate Scientists " have the ability to run scientific experiments ? No , but neither do astronomers , cosmologists , epidemiologists , paleontologists.. . The ability to run experiments is not a necessary condition for a field to be a science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think "Climate Scientists" have the ability to run scientific experiments?No, but neither do astronomers, cosmologists, epidemiologists, paleontologists...

The ability to run experiments is not a necessary condition for a field to be a science.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31021052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31025946</id>
	<title>Re:A great idea</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265316960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong perspective.<br>Why do you call it a mistake? What crazy idea is that, to call something good (gaining useful new information) &ldquo;bad&rdquo;?<br>It&rsquo;s not bad, so you don&rsquo;t have to &ldquo;admit&rdquo; anything.</p><p>That&rsquo;s the great thing about science: The worst thing that can happen, is that you don&rsquo;t learn something new. (= 0)<br>Everything else (= +x | -x) is a success.<br>Who cares if it was expected.</p><p>Frankly, I find the unexpected results to be far cooler than the expected ones.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>A scientist is the only person, who can brag, if something goes &ldquo;wrong&rdquo;.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong perspective.Why do you call it a mistake ?
What crazy idea is that , to call something good ( gaining useful new information )    bad    ? It    s not bad , so you don    t have to    admit    anything.That    s the great thing about science : The worst thing that can happen , is that you don    t learn something new .
( = 0 ) Everything else ( = + x | -x ) is a success.Who cares if it was expected.Frankly , I find the unexpected results to be far cooler than the expected ones .
: ) A scientist is the only person , who can brag , if something goes    wrong    .
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong perspective.Why do you call it a mistake?
What crazy idea is that, to call something good (gaining useful new information) “bad”?It’s not bad, so you don’t have to “admit” anything.That’s the great thing about science: The worst thing that can happen, is that you don’t learn something new.
(= 0)Everything else (= +x | -x) is a success.Who cares if it was expected.Frankly, I find the unexpected results to be far cooler than the expected ones.
:)A scientist is the only person, who can brag, if something goes “wrong”.
:D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31022996</id>
	<title>Re:A great idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265302380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Out of interest, can you show us the 5 lines of text? (I'm interested in microfluidics and unexpected failure modes are always good to know about...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of interest , can you show us the 5 lines of text ?
( I 'm interested in microfluidics and unexpected failure modes are always good to know about... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out of interest, can you show us the 5 lines of text?
(I'm interested in microfluidics and unexpected failure modes are always good to know about...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019218</id>
	<title>This IS a great idea, and the cause of our failing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264963260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we ONLY publish and peer review our successes, our failures and errata is discarded.</p><p>In this data could be a LOT of really amazing potential, given peer review and continuance.</p><p>No wonder we don't have a theory of everything yet, we're not looking at nearly all the data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we ONLY publish and peer review our successes , our failures and errata is discarded.In this data could be a LOT of really amazing potential , given peer review and continuance.No wonder we do n't have a theory of everything yet , we 're not looking at nearly all the data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we ONLY publish and peer review our successes, our failures and errata is discarded.In this data could be a LOT of really amazing potential, given peer review and continuance.No wonder we don't have a theory of everything yet, we're not looking at nearly all the data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019316</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>You'reJustSlashFlock</author>
	<datestamp>1264964460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the LHC generates a wet, cock-eating black hole, will it pornographic?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the LHC generates a wet , cock-eating black hole , will it pornographic ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the LHC generates a wet, cock-eating black hole, will it pornographic?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019992</id>
	<title>All the mystery goes to one journal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265277000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it lives up to its title they be to much fun stuff, and to much mystery
in this one journal. All the experiments which don't turn out like it
was predicting will end up being documented in the JoSaUR. If we're
unlucky these strange results will get burried in is ths journal and
no one will bother to try to reproduce the unexpected. The serendipitous
and unexpected is of course, exactly what moves science forward, so
I hope experiments that end up in JoSaUR do get looked at again and hard.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/History\%20of\%20Science/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">History of Science</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed DIstiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it lives up to its title they be to much fun stuff , and to much mystery in this one journal .
All the experiments which do n't turn out like it was predicting will end up being documented in the JoSaUR .
If we 're unlucky these strange results will get burried in is ths journal and no one will bother to try to reproduce the unexpected .
The serendipitous and unexpected is of course , exactly what moves science forward , so I hope experiments that end up in JoSaUR do get looked at again and hard .
--- History of Science [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed DIstiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it lives up to its title they be to much fun stuff, and to much mystery
in this one journal.
All the experiments which don't turn out like it
was predicting will end up being documented in the JoSaUR.
If we're
unlucky these strange results will get burried in is ths journal and
no one will bother to try to reproduce the unexpected.
The serendipitous
and unexpected is of course, exactly what moves science forward, so
I hope experiments that end up in JoSaUR do get looked at again and hard.
---

History of Science [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed DIstiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019164</id>
	<title>A great idea</title>
	<author>al0ha</author>
	<datestamp>1264962540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>but the obstacles are immense.  Egos are massive and competition is fierce, so asking researchers to admit a mistake or give the competition a short cut is a tall order.</htmltext>
<tokenext>but the obstacles are immense .
Egos are massive and competition is fierce , so asking researchers to admit a mistake or give the competition a short cut is a tall order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but the obstacles are immense.
Egos are massive and competition is fierce, so asking researchers to admit a mistake or give the competition a short cut is a tall order.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31020092</id>
	<title>This is nothing new</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265278440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Journal of Unreproducible Results was created in the 60's (really) and the name has become a very common joke among scientists ever since<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Journal of Unreproducible Results was created in the 60 's ( really ) and the name has become a very common joke among scientists ever since : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Journal of Unreproducible Results was created in the 60's (really) and the name has become a very common joke among scientists ever since :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31025544</id>
	<title>Re:Great scientists weren't very scientific</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1265314380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your argument might have smelled more honest if you had included at least one counterexample, for instance Richard Feynman. Beyond his sheer brilliance, the man was committed to thinking scientifically in every one of his life endeavors (except maybe his divergences into art) and worked diligently to communicate the principles of scientific thinking to every student he ever came in contact with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your argument might have smelled more honest if you had included at least one counterexample , for instance Richard Feynman .
Beyond his sheer brilliance , the man was committed to thinking scientifically in every one of his life endeavors ( except maybe his divergences into art ) and worked diligently to communicate the principles of scientific thinking to every student he ever came in contact with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your argument might have smelled more honest if you had included at least one counterexample, for instance Richard Feynman.
Beyond his sheer brilliance, the man was committed to thinking scientifically in every one of his life endeavors (except maybe his divergences into art) and worked diligently to communicate the principles of scientific thinking to every student he ever came in contact with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31024258</id>
	<title>Re:A great idea</title>
	<author>joeyblades</author>
	<datestamp>1265308320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
This is exactly right.
</p><p>
A complete failure to grasp three fundamental human behaviors:
</p><ol>
<li>The tendancy to rewrite history so that we don't look like idiots.</li><li>The tendancy keep competitive advantages to ourselves.</li><li>The tendency to reinvent stuff because of an NIH (Not Invented Here) mentality</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly right .
A complete failure to grasp three fundamental human behaviors : The tendancy to rewrite history so that we do n't look like idiots.The tendancy keep competitive advantages to ourselves.The tendency to reinvent stuff because of an NIH ( Not Invented Here ) mentality</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This is exactly right.
A complete failure to grasp three fundamental human behaviors:

The tendancy to rewrite history so that we don't look like idiots.The tendancy keep competitive advantages to ourselves.The tendency to reinvent stuff because of an NIH (Not Invented Here) mentality</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019158</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Biff Stu</author>
	<datestamp>1264962480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the LHC generates an Earth-eating black hole, will it be published here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the LHC generates an Earth-eating black hole , will it be published here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the LHC generates an Earth-eating black hole, will it be published here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31025834</id>
	<title>CMB is one example</title>
	<author>FibreOptix</author>
	<datestamp>1265316360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A pretty good idea... The Cosmic Microwave Background was first discovered by 2  engineers who thought they had bird shit on their receiver... Humble beginnings.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A pretty good idea... The Cosmic Microwave Background was first discovered by 2 engineers who thought they had bird shit on their receiver... Humble beginnings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A pretty good idea... The Cosmic Microwave Background was first discovered by 2  engineers who thought they had bird shit on their receiver... Humble beginnings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31064186</id>
	<title>Re:Great scientists weren't very scientific</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265620260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Einstein's objections to QM were a bit more profound than you give him credit for. His thinking was extremely nuanced and productive, even if he was wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Einstein 's objections to QM were a bit more profound than you give him credit for .
His thinking was extremely nuanced and productive , even if he was wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Einstein's objections to QM were a bit more profound than you give him credit for.
His thinking was extremely nuanced and productive, even if he was wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019454</id>
	<title>Re:Fantastic idea</title>
	<author>complete loony</author>
	<datestamp>1264966680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>using statistical analysis developed by economists</p></div><p>Funny, given recent events I would be more worried about the economists models.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>using statistical analysis developed by economistsFunny , given recent events I would be more worried about the economists models .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>using statistical analysis developed by economistsFunny, given recent events I would be more worried about the economists models.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019468</id>
	<title>Bravo!</title>
	<author>CranberryKing</author>
	<datestamp>1264966860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A refreshing perspective in a world of agenda oriented science. Anyone who's ever had a hunch that turned up false knows such disappointment. Less we forget that the spirit of science is about discovery, knowledge and truth first. Being right, dead last.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A refreshing perspective in a world of agenda oriented science .
Anyone who 's ever had a hunch that turned up false knows such disappointment .
Less we forget that the spirit of science is about discovery , knowledge and truth first .
Being right , dead last .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A refreshing perspective in a world of agenda oriented science.
Anyone who's ever had a hunch that turned up false knows such disappointment.
Less we forget that the spirit of science is about discovery, knowledge and truth first.
Being right, dead last.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019668</id>
	<title>Call for co-authors</title>
	<author>jbatista</author>
	<datestamp>1265315820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK, I have an idea for an article.
"Experiments on Seduction: Why 'Just Be Yourself' Is a Bad Idea. Personal Recounts and Anedoctes."

Abstract:
Friends and relatives often dispense wisdom on the subject of seduction of members of the opposite sex by stating "Just be yourself". In this paper we provide evidence for the failure of this conventional wisdom and provide alternate explanations to its failure.


Who wants to co-author?</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , I have an idea for an article .
" Experiments on Seduction : Why 'Just Be Yourself ' Is a Bad Idea .
Personal Recounts and Anedoctes .
" Abstract : Friends and relatives often dispense wisdom on the subject of seduction of members of the opposite sex by stating " Just be yourself " .
In this paper we provide evidence for the failure of this conventional wisdom and provide alternate explanations to its failure .
Who wants to co-author ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, I have an idea for an article.
"Experiments on Seduction: Why 'Just Be Yourself' Is a Bad Idea.
Personal Recounts and Anedoctes.
"

Abstract:
Friends and relatives often dispense wisdom on the subject of seduction of members of the opposite sex by stating "Just be yourself".
In this paper we provide evidence for the failure of this conventional wisdom and provide alternate explanations to its failure.
Who wants to co-author?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31021052</id>
	<title>Re:Fantastic idea</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1265291280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;But anyway, all of this is to say that this has gotten me thinking about how the scientific process may still be open to some innovation.</p><p>The sad fact is, there's a lot of work being done under the name of science that isn't really science, or perhaps, science-lite. Do you think "Climate Scientists" have the ability to run scientific experiments? (Let's start with 1,000 earths, add 100ppm of CO2 to half of them, and measure the difference in average temperature across 100 years.) No, of course not. But everyone calls it science anyway, because they publish papers, do a lot of modeling and data analysis and otherwise appear to be doing the same sort of things that real scientists do.</p><p>Of course, when you start getting picky about it, there's very few disciplines outside of physics that actually have the same ability to cleanly hold experimental variables in isolation from each other. People conducting "scientific" studies on education will take a group of 60 teachers, train half of them in some cool new teaching technique, and then study the differences in class test results between the control and experimental groups. But teachers and students are complex things, and so even if you show positive test gains, you can't be certain it was your nifty new teaching method.</p><p>In medicine, likewise, people will prove things conclusively (p  0.01!!) only to have another study show the exact opposite. Sometimes they'll go back and forth on a subject for years (consider the cell phone/cancer question, or if echinechea is good for you). And nobody really notices that by the statistics they throw around, it should be relatively impossible to get 10 different high confidence level studies all disagreeing on a subject (as long as we can assume there weren't 1000 studies that were being tossed in the trash to cherry pick the best ones). But people still toss around these high confidence factors as if they're meaningful.</p><p>It's actually a very serious problem in science right now. Either the above fields aren't science (or "scientific"), or the mathematical foundations of experimentation are all wrong. However, since we've doing quite well, thank you very much, people don't care very much, even if it floods us with anti-scientific health warnings on our soda cans and places of work, and results in a huge industry for people selling nonsensical "radiation barriers" for cell phones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; But anyway , all of this is to say that this has gotten me thinking about how the scientific process may still be open to some innovation.The sad fact is , there 's a lot of work being done under the name of science that is n't really science , or perhaps , science-lite .
Do you think " Climate Scientists " have the ability to run scientific experiments ?
( Let 's start with 1,000 earths , add 100ppm of CO2 to half of them , and measure the difference in average temperature across 100 years .
) No , of course not .
But everyone calls it science anyway , because they publish papers , do a lot of modeling and data analysis and otherwise appear to be doing the same sort of things that real scientists do.Of course , when you start getting picky about it , there 's very few disciplines outside of physics that actually have the same ability to cleanly hold experimental variables in isolation from each other .
People conducting " scientific " studies on education will take a group of 60 teachers , train half of them in some cool new teaching technique , and then study the differences in class test results between the control and experimental groups .
But teachers and students are complex things , and so even if you show positive test gains , you ca n't be certain it was your nifty new teaching method.In medicine , likewise , people will prove things conclusively ( p 0.01 ! !
) only to have another study show the exact opposite .
Sometimes they 'll go back and forth on a subject for years ( consider the cell phone/cancer question , or if echinechea is good for you ) .
And nobody really notices that by the statistics they throw around , it should be relatively impossible to get 10 different high confidence level studies all disagreeing on a subject ( as long as we can assume there were n't 1000 studies that were being tossed in the trash to cherry pick the best ones ) .
But people still toss around these high confidence factors as if they 're meaningful.It 's actually a very serious problem in science right now .
Either the above fields are n't science ( or " scientific " ) , or the mathematical foundations of experimentation are all wrong .
However , since we 've doing quite well , thank you very much , people do n't care very much , even if it floods us with anti-scientific health warnings on our soda cans and places of work , and results in a huge industry for people selling nonsensical " radiation barriers " for cell phones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;But anyway, all of this is to say that this has gotten me thinking about how the scientific process may still be open to some innovation.The sad fact is, there's a lot of work being done under the name of science that isn't really science, or perhaps, science-lite.
Do you think "Climate Scientists" have the ability to run scientific experiments?
(Let's start with 1,000 earths, add 100ppm of CO2 to half of them, and measure the difference in average temperature across 100 years.
) No, of course not.
But everyone calls it science anyway, because they publish papers, do a lot of modeling and data analysis and otherwise appear to be doing the same sort of things that real scientists do.Of course, when you start getting picky about it, there's very few disciplines outside of physics that actually have the same ability to cleanly hold experimental variables in isolation from each other.
People conducting "scientific" studies on education will take a group of 60 teachers, train half of them in some cool new teaching technique, and then study the differences in class test results between the control and experimental groups.
But teachers and students are complex things, and so even if you show positive test gains, you can't be certain it was your nifty new teaching method.In medicine, likewise, people will prove things conclusively (p  0.01!!
) only to have another study show the exact opposite.
Sometimes they'll go back and forth on a subject for years (consider the cell phone/cancer question, or if echinechea is good for you).
And nobody really notices that by the statistics they throw around, it should be relatively impossible to get 10 different high confidence level studies all disagreeing on a subject (as long as we can assume there weren't 1000 studies that were being tossed in the trash to cherry pick the best ones).
But people still toss around these high confidence factors as if they're meaningful.It's actually a very serious problem in science right now.
Either the above fields aren't science (or "scientific"), or the mathematical foundations of experimentation are all wrong.
However, since we've doing quite well, thank you very much, people don't care very much, even if it floods us with anti-scientific health warnings on our soda cans and places of work, and results in a huge industry for people selling nonsensical "radiation barriers" for cell phones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019566</id>
	<title>Re:Great scientists weren't very scientific</title>
	<author>Evelas</author>
	<datestamp>1265314200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>God does not play dice with the universe, he plays Go.
- W. Taylor</htmltext>
<tokenext>God does not play dice with the universe , he plays Go .
- W. Taylor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God does not play dice with the universe, he plays Go.
- W. Taylor</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31026116</id>
	<title>Re:failed experiment</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265274480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since we haven&rsquo;t invented a time machine yet (working on it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)... since Wendy&rsquo;s state is not resettable, unless there was a massive amount of alcohol involved the first time, which already resetted it (wish I had that option the day after the date with her!)... and since there is only one Wendy just like her (oh thank god for that one!)... going back is not an option. You can only try with the accumulated state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since we haven    t invented a time machine yet ( working on it ; ) ... since Wendy    s state is not resettable , unless there was a massive amount of alcohol involved the first time , which already resetted it ( wish I had that option the day after the date with her ! ) .. .
and since there is only one Wendy just like her ( oh thank god for that one ! ) .. .
going back is not an option .
You can only try with the accumulated state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since we haven’t invented a time machine yet (working on it ;)... since Wendy’s state is not resettable, unless there was a massive amount of alcohol involved the first time, which already resetted it (wish I had that option the day after the date with her!)...
and since there is only one Wendy just like her (oh thank god for that one!)...
going back is not an option.
You can only try with the accumulated state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31020028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31021128</id>
	<title>Re:A great idea</title>
	<author>Mr. Tobes</author>
	<datestamp>1265292060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But my point is, in all my experience as scientist. I've never seen one of my colleagues say "we should hide this", but I've often heard "I would like to tell about this, but I don't know of a paper that would accept it".</p><p>Also when something fails we need to carry on, but now we're behind schedule...</p></div><p>Couldn't agree more with you. I've been repeatedly told "You usually only publish positive results". If anyone is interested in an insightful discussion of many of these issues, they might like to track down a book called "Communicating Science" by Nicholas Russell. The first section gives a good critique of the history of science publishing. One of the major issues is simply the historical legacy of a lack of pages in printed journals - who wants to waste space reporting what didn't work? With the rise of the web and open-access publishing there is the slight possibility that this artificial cap on the amount of research that can be published will be finally lifted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But my point is , in all my experience as scientist .
I 've never seen one of my colleagues say " we should hide this " , but I 've often heard " I would like to tell about this , but I do n't know of a paper that would accept it " .Also when something fails we need to carry on , but now we 're behind schedule...Could n't agree more with you .
I 've been repeatedly told " You usually only publish positive results " .
If anyone is interested in an insightful discussion of many of these issues , they might like to track down a book called " Communicating Science " by Nicholas Russell .
The first section gives a good critique of the history of science publishing .
One of the major issues is simply the historical legacy of a lack of pages in printed journals - who wants to waste space reporting what did n't work ?
With the rise of the web and open-access publishing there is the slight possibility that this artificial cap on the amount of research that can be published will be finally lifted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But my point is, in all my experience as scientist.
I've never seen one of my colleagues say "we should hide this", but I've often heard "I would like to tell about this, but I don't know of a paper that would accept it".Also when something fails we need to carry on, but now we're behind schedule...Couldn't agree more with you.
I've been repeatedly told "You usually only publish positive results".
If anyone is interested in an insightful discussion of many of these issues, they might like to track down a book called "Communicating Science" by Nicholas Russell.
The first section gives a good critique of the history of science publishing.
One of the major issues is simply the historical legacy of a lack of pages in printed journals - who wants to waste space reporting what didn't work?
With the rise of the web and open-access publishing there is the slight possibility that this artificial cap on the amount of research that can be published will be finally lifted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019496</id>
	<title>Re:A great idea</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1264967340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Egos are massive and competition is fierce, so asking researchers to admit a mistake or give the competition a short cut is a tall order.</p></div><p>The funny thing is, discoveries are not "I told you!". They're "That's interesting...".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Egos are massive and competition is fierce , so asking researchers to admit a mistake or give the competition a short cut is a tall order.The funny thing is , discoveries are not " I told you ! " .
They 're " That 's interesting... " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Egos are massive and competition is fierce, so asking researchers to admit a mistake or give the competition a short cut is a tall order.The funny thing is, discoveries are not "I told you!".
They're "That's interesting...".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019522</id>
	<title>Mod humanity</title>
	<author>shadowbearer</author>
	<datestamp>1264967820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Redundant.</p><p>
&nbsp; Well, duh.</p><p>SB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Redundant .
  Well , duh.SB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Redundant.
  Well, duh.SB</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019312</id>
	<title>Awesome!  It's about time!</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1264964400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a fantastic idea!  It takes a great deal of strength to do this; one has to learn how to have fun and ignore the pangs of the ego.</p><p>James Burke's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections\_(TV\_series)" title="wikipedia.org"> <i>Connections</i> </a> [wikipedia.org] was based on similar philosophy.  Non-linear thinking is a very powerful method of moving through time.  Many geeks live in the clutches of an obsessive desire to control everything so that they don't get hurt by being wrong.  If they could just relax and roll with the ups and downs and not be so hard on themselves, not care if they are laughed at, then they would find their power and perhaps start living lives of consequence.</p><p>One university professor described an enormously powerful way of doing research; When you're up against a wall, seeking fruitlessly to find a specific title to continue your line of thinking, instead just pull out some random book nearby.  Doesn't even have to be from the same shelf or Dewey code.  It will have the answer.  -But only if you're tuned to your inner Jedi.</p><p>Those who deny their inner Jedi are forever lost.  But the upside, I guess, is that nobody will laugh at them.</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a fantastic idea !
It takes a great deal of strength to do this ; one has to learn how to have fun and ignore the pangs of the ego.James Burke 's Connections [ wikipedia.org ] was based on similar philosophy .
Non-linear thinking is a very powerful method of moving through time .
Many geeks live in the clutches of an obsessive desire to control everything so that they do n't get hurt by being wrong .
If they could just relax and roll with the ups and downs and not be so hard on themselves , not care if they are laughed at , then they would find their power and perhaps start living lives of consequence.One university professor described an enormously powerful way of doing research ; When you 're up against a wall , seeking fruitlessly to find a specific title to continue your line of thinking , instead just pull out some random book nearby .
Does n't even have to be from the same shelf or Dewey code .
It will have the answer .
-But only if you 're tuned to your inner Jedi.Those who deny their inner Jedi are forever lost .
But the upside , I guess , is that nobody will laugh at them.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a fantastic idea!
It takes a great deal of strength to do this; one has to learn how to have fun and ignore the pangs of the ego.James Burke's  Connections  [wikipedia.org] was based on similar philosophy.
Non-linear thinking is a very powerful method of moving through time.
Many geeks live in the clutches of an obsessive desire to control everything so that they don't get hurt by being wrong.
If they could just relax and roll with the ups and downs and not be so hard on themselves, not care if they are laughed at, then they would find their power and perhaps start living lives of consequence.One university professor described an enormously powerful way of doing research; When you're up against a wall, seeking fruitlessly to find a specific title to continue your line of thinking, instead just pull out some random book nearby.
Doesn't even have to be from the same shelf or Dewey code.
It will have the answer.
-But only if you're tuned to your inner Jedi.Those who deny their inner Jedi are forever lost.
But the upside, I guess, is that nobody will laugh at them.-FL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019476</id>
	<title>Great scientists weren't very scientific</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Einstein wasted the last half of his life on wishful thinking "God does not play dice". Well turns out we're pretty sure he does. See Bell's theorum which shows that it can't just be hidden variables. And by all accounts for a theoretical physicist he sucked at advanced math.</p><p>Isaac Newton was a horrible little man. Ill tempered, neurotic, and did wild experiments that he was lucky didn't blind him. Let's not forget the nastiness with Leibniz.</p><p>Galileo had the social skills of a village idiot which led to the suppression of his work and his imprisonment by the authorities that he angered. (They were idiots too but that's beside the point)</p><p>They're three of the greatest but I could go on.</p><p>We like to pretend our scientists are great men with a couple of eccentricities that are way too smart to socialise or tolerate fools but the fact is their thinking isn't so superior OR logical OR scientific EXCEPT in their areas of expertise. THAT is why they are remembered. Not because they were above being unscientific.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Einstein wasted the last half of his life on wishful thinking " God does not play dice " .
Well turns out we 're pretty sure he does .
See Bell 's theorum which shows that it ca n't just be hidden variables .
And by all accounts for a theoretical physicist he sucked at advanced math.Isaac Newton was a horrible little man .
Ill tempered , neurotic , and did wild experiments that he was lucky did n't blind him .
Let 's not forget the nastiness with Leibniz.Galileo had the social skills of a village idiot which led to the suppression of his work and his imprisonment by the authorities that he angered .
( They were idiots too but that 's beside the point ) They 're three of the greatest but I could go on.We like to pretend our scientists are great men with a couple of eccentricities that are way too smart to socialise or tolerate fools but the fact is their thinking is n't so superior OR logical OR scientific EXCEPT in their areas of expertise .
THAT is why they are remembered .
Not because they were above being unscientific .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Einstein wasted the last half of his life on wishful thinking "God does not play dice".
Well turns out we're pretty sure he does.
See Bell's theorum which shows that it can't just be hidden variables.
And by all accounts for a theoretical physicist he sucked at advanced math.Isaac Newton was a horrible little man.
Ill tempered, neurotic, and did wild experiments that he was lucky didn't blind him.
Let's not forget the nastiness with Leibniz.Galileo had the social skills of a village idiot which led to the suppression of his work and his imprisonment by the authorities that he angered.
(They were idiots too but that's beside the point)They're three of the greatest but I could go on.We like to pretend our scientists are great men with a couple of eccentricities that are way too smart to socialise or tolerate fools but the fact is their thinking isn't so superior OR logical OR scientific EXCEPT in their areas of expertise.
THAT is why they are remembered.
Not because they were above being unscientific.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31023536</id>
	<title>Re:failed experiment</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1265304780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, past failures have forever tainted the sample.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , past failures have forever tainted the sample .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, past failures have forever tainted the sample.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31020028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31020056</id>
	<title>Re:A great idea</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1265277840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Egos are massive and competition is fierce, so asking researchers to admit a mistake or give the competition a short cut is a tall order.</p></div><p>This must depend on the field if it's true anywhere.  In biology, you'd have to be the world's biggest ass to act like you've never had an unexpected result.  From my limited experience, if you suggest that -most- of your results are completely what you were expecting, I'd suspect you were lying.  It seems like on average, every other research presentation I see, by heads of labs included, the presenter admits some of the most interesting data was not what they expected.</p><p>The discovery of penicillin was a monumentally important "mistake."  Which field are you in that "researchers" think they're better than Alexander Flemming?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Egos are massive and competition is fierce , so asking researchers to admit a mistake or give the competition a short cut is a tall order.This must depend on the field if it 's true anywhere .
In biology , you 'd have to be the world 's biggest ass to act like you 've never had an unexpected result .
From my limited experience , if you suggest that -most- of your results are completely what you were expecting , I 'd suspect you were lying .
It seems like on average , every other research presentation I see , by heads of labs included , the presenter admits some of the most interesting data was not what they expected.The discovery of penicillin was a monumentally important " mistake .
" Which field are you in that " researchers " think they 're better than Alexander Flemming ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Egos are massive and competition is fierce, so asking researchers to admit a mistake or give the competition a short cut is a tall order.This must depend on the field if it's true anywhere.
In biology, you'd have to be the world's biggest ass to act like you've never had an unexpected result.
From my limited experience, if you suggest that -most- of your results are completely what you were expecting, I'd suspect you were lying.
It seems like on average, every other research presentation I see, by heads of labs included, the presenter admits some of the most interesting data was not what they expected.The discovery of penicillin was a monumentally important "mistake.
"  Which field are you in that "researchers" think they're better than Alexander Flemming?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019164</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31026116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31020028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31021580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31026230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31021052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31021562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31023536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31020028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31021152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31024258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31022048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31022024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31021176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31025544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31025946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31021128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31021540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31064186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31022996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2332233_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31020056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2332233.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2332233.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31025834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2332233.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2332233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31021540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31024258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31025946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31022024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31021580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31021128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31022996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31020056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2332233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31021562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2332233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31022048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31025544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31064186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31021152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2332233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019218
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2332233.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2332233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2332233.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2332233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31021176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31021052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31026230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2332233.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2332233.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2332233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31019494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31020028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31026116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2332233.31023536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
