Probably because usually more research is needed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Of course you can prove a negative. In one sense this can be the easiest thing in the world : your theory predicts something which doesn...
-
Hmmm. [The comments below include a prime example of someone claiming they're interested in truth but just want higher standard, where...
-
Where Americans think Ukraine is These are the guesses of 2066 Americans as to where Ukraine is. Only 1 in 6 were correct. Presumably the...
Subtitles read: "we want more funding."
ReplyDelete... surely not ! :)
ReplyDeleteWell, the more you know, the more you realise how much you don't know ...
ReplyDeleteSimon Barton Oh good point ! I just blindly assumed it meant a factor of 0.3 so 30%.
ReplyDeleteSomething tells me the scale is supposed to read 30%. I have found the statement "need more research" in almost all papers I have read.
ReplyDeleteApparently it is 0.3%.
ReplyDeleteTo extrapolate: in the year 17000 they will write "all research still lies ahead!"
I'm going to step in it...ok, do the above and below median clusters correlate with: i) expenditures ii) tech advances or, iii) government or other market demands?
ReplyDeleteWish I could find the original citation for this semi - questionable graph. Cheers!
Ian Rawlings that would be tantamount to "and not a thing was learned..." rather embarrassing. Doesn't do much for the CV. Not much of a conversation starter over drinks, either.
ReplyDelete