The problem with negative results is that you as the publication reader don't know if the thing just plain didn't work or if the people trying to do it were incompetent.

This is entirely why I find engineering far more trustworthy than 'science' in 2018.

Academia has a professor who wants to prove their idea is true. They rig up an experiement to prove their idea is true. They teach a kid how to collect the data. Then wow, they proved it true! Discovery? No.

Engineering- prove your idea works and dont stop until the problem goes away.

> Then wow, they proved it true!

I don't know of any reputable scientists that would claim to "prove" anything. Popper rather put an end to that.

It would be improper to say it doesn't revolve around certain outcomes though. I know a few guys in college that would get free money and travel to some remote part of the world to "research" climate change. It was pretty much a paid vacation for them. If you were studying how the climate followed cycles and it may have less to do with what humans are doing, you wouldn't get the funding.

I think there's a lot of bullshit in academia but it's not so much about the engineering vs science distinction being made here as it is about any situation where people can play the game.

I think any large organisation will have it's fair share of bullshit and people playing the system. It's hard to align incentives with outcomes.

Producing unverified researching is different than releasing a product.

One gets checked by customers, the other gets... reported?