Are you seriously attempting to imply that Nature retractions aren't few and far between?

What's even your point here? Hopefully we are at least in agreement that Nature is seen as prestigious and worth looking through precisely because of the sort of content that they publish. Diluting that would dilute their very nature. (Bad pun very much intended sorry I just couldn't resist.)

▲

MarkusQ an hour ago | parent [-]

"Are you seriously attempting to imply that Nature retractions aren't few and far between?"

No. I'm explicitly stating that they are few and far between, but perhaps (not certainly, but conceivably) they shouldn't be.

"What's even your point here?"

My point is that focusing on positive findings and neglecting negative findings perverts the mechanism that makes science work. Science isn't about proving things correct, it's about rooting out errors.

	▲	fc417fc802 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not sure I agree. The system certainly isn't optimal but results aren't just dumped into a vacuum. Something is only useful if people can build on it. Even if negative results don't get published, even if it isn't optimal, by virtue of future positive results building on past things that did reproduce you get forward progress. Regardless, I don't think that's at odds with my original assertion that becoming a venue for publishing negative results would undermine the "point" of Nature. The missing link isn't a venue in which to publish. It's funding to do the work in the first place. Also funding to spend the time writing it up when you find that you've inadvertently been tricked into doing the work while trying to get something that builds on it to work.