I wouldn't be so sure. Not talking about mathematics or CS, but in many social sciences (and also medicine and so on) the paper is just stating that A->B but i) there can be a lot more things going on that explain whatever correlation you are finding (from reverse causality to bad experimental setup), and *more importantly ii) in order to get published, you need to present a somewhat interesting or controversial statement.
If you state something obvious and most likely true, good luck getting to Nature/Science. If you state something unusual, then that will sell (where selling is getting citations) so you will see it published
The Earth isn't flat, but it certainly approximates being flat for small measurements of its surface (such as those early civilizations would've been able to make).
Comments
I wouldn't be so sure. Not talking about mathematics or CS, but in many social sciences (and also medicine and so on) the paper is just stating that A->B but i) there can be a lot more things going on that explain whatever correlation you are finding (from reverse causality to bad experimental setup), and *more importantly ii) in order to get published, you need to present a somewhat interesting or controversial statement.
If you state something obvious and most likely true, good luck getting to Nature/Science. If you state something unusual, then that will sell (where selling is getting citations) so you will see it published
Asimov wrote an excellent piece on this - The Relativity of Wrong: http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
The Earth isn't flat, but it certainly approximates being flat for small measurements of its surface (such as those early civilizations would've been able to make).