Consider a thought experiment. Two graduate students have written identical dissertations: the same experiments, the same data, the same robust findings. One is written as a standard, cautious text that flatters the subfield whose intuitions drove the design and to whom the findings will feel familiar. The other reframes the study for a different, but equally relevant, audience—one holding different suppositions and therefore open to being surprised into shifting its position. The latter approach is more valuable for good reasons: the scientific community and the world will learn more.