I am a PhD candidate who is working on something new to me in a similar but different field as my educational background. So I have received some guidance to start with what my supervisor knows well. After reading into the topic and coming to my own conclusion, I have realized that intuitively I am researching something that is obvious. In the sense that if I talk to my other colleagues and say the idea the result is obvious to them, I don't even need to explain anything.
So I feel like it should not be published as there is no contribution but rather proving something that is intuitively obvious. But my supervisor was taken aback when I raised this with her and I am not sure what to do. Because she seems to think it can be published otherwise she wouldn't be taken back, is my feeling. I read on another post that because the supervisor is more senior and experienced, they would know better as to what is publishable and what is not. But I am starting to think that it is pointless to work on the topic and that it isn't worth doing because of how obvious it is.