Definitive proof that a hypothesis is wrong is just as solid a result as definitive proof the hypothesis is right.
Disproving a hypothesis does not offer "definitive proof" equivalent to proving one correct, as it eliminates only one scenario among potentially infinite others, whereas proving a hypothesis correct directly builds upon our understanding of the world. The value of disproved hypotheses primarily lies in guiding future research rather than providing solid, actionable results.
Certainly, I don't disagree with that at all. And that's likely part of the reason so few people publish failures, because there's no "reward". All I was saying is there's still value there.
Agree.
Disproving a hypothesis does not offer "definitive proof" equivalent to proving one correct, as it eliminates only one scenario among potentially infinite others, whereas proving a hypothesis correct directly builds upon our understanding of the world. The value of disproved hypotheses primarily lies in guiding future research rather than providing solid, actionable results.
Certainly, I don't disagree with that at all. And that's likely part of the reason so few people publish failures, because there's no "reward". All I was saying is there's still value there.