That's great in principle. In practice, to keep doing the work of science you need to keep getting funding; and to keep getting funding you need to keep publishing (read: to respectable conferences and journals).
Unfortunately, the most respectable journals have a nasty tendency to refuse to publish negative, or even equivocal results. And that puts a lot of pressure on researchers to find a signal, somehow, anyhow- and to viciously attack any suspicion that the signal was just a spider on the lens or whatever.
Which is not to say Feynamn is wrong. On the contrary: reform is sorely needed. But reform can only come from the inside, and the only people "inside" are those who accept they must play by the rules, rotten as they are.
Bottom line: we all want to Do the Right Thing, For Science. But doing the right thing and still doing science is getting harder and harder as time goes by.
Unfortunately, the most respectable journals have a nasty tendency to refuse to publish negative, or even equivocal results. And that puts a lot of pressure on researchers to find a signal, somehow, anyhow- and to viciously attack any suspicion that the signal was just a spider on the lens or whatever.
Which is not to say Feynamn is wrong. On the contrary: reform is sorely needed. But reform can only come from the inside, and the only people "inside" are those who accept they must play by the rules, rotten as they are.
Bottom line: we all want to Do the Right Thing, For Science. But doing the right thing and still doing science is getting harder and harder as time goes by.