Beach Haven

I jog some days. When I do, generally I have something playing in my ears. This morning, among other things, I listened to one of my regular podcasts. It’s called Nature Podcast and is published by the scientific journal called Nature. This particular episode is titled Audio long read: So you got a null result. Will anyone publish it? The article was written by Max Kozlov and read by the podcast host Benjamin Thompson. What an interesting concept. Most journals, including Nature, are looking for scientific studies with some sort of positive correlation outcome. Something that has a new or novel conclusion. However, experience teaches that most scientific efforts result in a negative correlation, or null outcome, just like any other human endeavor. I’m reminded of how many failures the Edison company had coming up with a working filament for the lightbulb before finally getting one that worked. We now tell ourselves this famous story, but until there was a working light bulb, nobody had any interest in telling the story of all the other versions that didn’t work. Had they never gotten it write would there be any interest in the failure and likely death of the company? Even with success, are there articles that review each failure and speak to why they failed? I believe not. It seems like we just lump all the filament failures into a number to show how many times the experimenters in Edison’s employ failed as a tail about persistence paying off.

Kozlov points out, among other things, how journals are in the business of attracting readers. The article notes how there are some sites in cyber space where these negative results are published, but with few submissions and little readership. As I listened to the long read, I was reminded of several other famous arguments made in the past. For example, Robert Merton famously wrote on scientific norms in an attempt to explain what motivates scientists. Many have since argued that Mertonian norms depict an optimistic list and suggest counter norms that seem more realistic to the authors. One could make the argument that any set of norms ascribed are a function of the subjective preferences of the list constructor.

Another argument that came to my mind was that of the 'Matthew effect', an idea also coined by Robert Merton. This assertion touts that those who get published gain some sort of credibility which then makes their future findings more likely to be published. The idea is from the biblical book of Matthew when the statement in one of the parables asserts to him who have shall be given more, and to him who has not shall be taken away even that which he has. Now, of course, these New Testament ideas were not about scientific credibility, nonetheless Merton makes hay from the idea. Taking it a step further, Margaret Rossiter added a feminist perspective asserting that women in this predicament are even less likely to get published or recognized for their scientific research, dubbing her argument the 'Matilda effect'.

The Nature article shares several unintended consequences of this propensity to only publish positive findings and ignore null outcomes. In the environment of ‘publish or perish’ people who have null research outcomes are likely to drop efforts and not document them. There is a reinforcing relationship between readership levels and publication levels of negative findings. Also, there are likely missed opportunities in that some researchers might find inspiration in null findings to move the research in a different direction. These avenues could be missed if they don’t hear about the research. When such findings are not shared, others may also waste time by conducting the same failed research unawares. As with Nature, it seems to me there ought to be some way to encourage publication and consumption of null-finding research. 

Pausing is something I’d like to mention in this note. Reading in the book of Moroni (within The Book of Mormon) I recently noticed something. In Chapter 2, Jesus gives the apostles power to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost. He tells them that before they enact the ordinance they should, “call on the Father in my name, in mighty prayer; and after ye have done this ye shall have power…”. In Chapter 3, He gives them power to ordain brethren to the priesthood. Verse 3 notes, “After they had prayed unto the Father in the name of Christ…”. In both cases the holders of the priesthood are to pause long enough to pray before they enact the ordinance.

I have often done this myself, and have seen others do it also. I hadn’t thought of it as an instruction or requirement to do so, only a way to bring the Spirit. Yet in both of these chapters, saying a prayer as a precursor to the ordinance is part of the ‘manner of’, meaning part of the expected process. In the first case, Jesus specifically instructs the brethren to do it. In the second case, it is written as one step in the process.

The practice of making time to pause and pray can be applied to anything we face. It could be for seeking guidance and assistance in completing a difficult task like taking a school exam, giving a speech, discussing a family problem, or approaching the bishop for repentance. Taking a prayerful pause can also be taken after getting through something such as any of these same examples. Taking pause can be done during a moment of pondering, or while noticing your blessings. Pausing and praying doesn’t have to be something prescribed. We don’t have to go find a place to formally kneel if it’s not available. We can just take a moment to bow our head, whisper our prayer, and collect our thoughts wherever we are. We can also consciously seek a moment of privacy where kneeling and verbal prayer are possible. In my mind, the latter is preferable.

As an example, in my recent working life I have been a speaker at meetings of a committee of the NPR Board of Directors. It was a part of my job I did almost every month. Some time just before the meeting starts I would close my office door and bow my head to ask for Heavenly Father to inspire me with the right words. I did that even though I already did as part of my normal morning prayer. I still had to do my part to be prepared for the meetings, but He helped me recall the information I needed during the presentation and in response to questions that will come up from board members.

I recommend we each take advantage of the blessing God has given us, the blessing to pause and pray with whatever life brings us. Even when we are in a hurry and have little time, taking a moment will make the outcome better.
​

When our children were small, we had a series of home evenings in which we created a family vision statement. After a few discussions, we came up with this: “Wisdom through knowledge, integrity, and service.” We called it the ‘we kiss’ rule since we arranged it in a way that the first letters of each word formed the acronym WKIS. I’ve written several articles over the years related to this statement. Generally, anything I write to the family eventually ends up on this web site. I always thought we left out something spiritually inclined from the statement. To be fair, in our discussions the word ‘integrity’ was intended to include living a Christ-like life.

Fast forward some decades and in 2022 I had been thinking a lot about it. I listened to people (including family members) who say something like, ‘I’m a spiritual person but not a religious person’. By this they would clarify that organized churches are not for them. I considered how to add something about spirituality to round out the ‘we kiss rule’ with the second ‘s’. I thought also about just saying ‘and the Spirit’ meaning the Holy Ghost since I have been very focused on the need for the influence of the Spirit in our lives to help see our way through the fog of human reason or rhetoric. I finally decided that the Spirit is not our focus, but the Savior is our focus. I updated for myself the statement to be ‘Wisdom through knowledge, integrity, service, and the Savior.’

For those who may argue that being spiritual is good enough and I might have used it for my final ‘s’, here is the way I argued this point to myself. The reason I think I was uneasy with the long-standing earlier version is that while the goal of wisdom is what we agree upon, the mechanisms of knowledge, integrity and service are all three about characteristics I might develop in myself. In other words, the goal is to be achieved through my own efforts. Sadly, one need only to look around and realize readily that dependence solely on oneself only gets you so far. So many people essentially follow that method and yet arrive far short of what could be called wisdom. Just the fact that they all seem to land at a different idea of what is wise or true is evidence enough of variation from a universal. That we’ve even come to use phrases like ‘my truth’ or ‘your truth’ for what we used to understand as one’s perspective regarding truth, not universal truth itself, shows that such an approach is insufficient.

So, Mike, why not then just add spirituality at the end of the phrase? Isn’t that what you want to encourage in people? Well, surely spirituality is important, but it seems to be not enough. I would argue that for the same reasons as above. Organized religion, too, can be a seen as insufficient if one looks at how many different churches exist, even just within the Christian community. Here is where I would argue that we cannot then depend on just adding one more personal characteristic such as spirituality or religiosity since doing so still means we seek wisdom only through developing our own personal characteristics. In that way of looking at things, we are simply deciding which personal characteristics should be on our list of wisdom-getting tools. Since none of us is perfectly equipped with any characteristic we might add to our list, this approach of self-growth simply isn’t, and will never be, enough. That’s why this last letter in the new and improved ‘we kiss’ acronym has to represent something or someone outside of ourselves that does represent a perfect knowledge or understanding. I argue the scriptures point us to Heavenly Father, but through His son Jesus Christ. For Christians (and in truth which I could argue another day), His is the only name given to us that will lead to perfect wisdom, perfect truth. Adding spirituality assumes we can achieve the goal of wisdom alone. I am arguing that if we approach it that way then the amount of wisdom we gain will be severely limited. When we include the Savior, a perfect being can make up for our shortfall and bring us closer to perfect wisdom despite our imperfection.

Sorry if these babblings seem trivial or rambling. For an old, slow guy like me, these thoughts hold weight and are important. I’m sure you will read this and either say to yourself something like ‘no duh Mike’ or will instead judge me off point. I hope someone reading this will at least find it confirming of their own thoughts even it is not new ground.