But reproducing research results does produce new knowledge: enhanced validity of the original research. Or on the contrary, decreased validity. Both outcomes result in the creation of new (deeper) knowledge.
Yes, they do produce knowledge. And had PG said "a successful scientist has to produce knowledge" I'd be fine with that statement. Instead, he used the word "novel".
You could not say "I am doing novel research to reproduce the results of study X" and have "novel" be a correct usage of the term. That is simply not what novel means.
Sure, PG is right that "novel" research is important. But not that it's a necessary condition for success. That just reveals the SV bias against actually doing the daily work it takes to simply keep things going
It's fine to want to disrupt things, to (in the appropriate context) move fast & break things, fail quickly and move on, whatever. But when the dust settles on a successful "disruption", you need large numbers of people to put in the day-to-day work to make it work and keep things going. There is a tendency in SV culture to regard that first part as the highest virtue. Heck it's right there in PG's title: Think for Yourself The implication being that you're not thinking for yourself if you're one of the millions of people that make things work every day in a million different ways. Or take this quote:
"If you're naturally independent-minded, you're going to find it frustrating to be a middle manager."
This is so incredibly insulting to imply a person could not be a manager and also think for themselves. It's indicative of the out-of-touch siloed SV cult mentality that has raised novelty for its own sake along with hustle porn & more to cargo-cult virtues, all while deriding, denigrating, and just outright insulting any endeavor that isn't in service to that.
