3 ms·

Reproducibility in science doesn't mean "easy" reproducibility of experiments. Some experiments in science are famously known to be a one-off. Example: the fir

Reproducibility in science doesn't mean "easy" reproducibility of experiments. Some experiments in science are famously known to be a one-off. Example: the first test of general relativity was during a solar eclipse, with pictures that were subject to poor lightning conditions. Of course, the reason why we know it was right is that many other tests have been made since then, even though the original one can never be replicated. Same reasoning goes for other areas. A scientific experiment with software doesn't need to be replicated with the same software to be relevant (although it would be nice to do be able to do that). As long as other people can come up with their own implementation and arrive to similar results, the researcher achieved his/her goal.

netheril96 11y ago
> Reproducibility in science doesn't mean "easy" reproducibility of experiments. Where it is easy to make it easy to replicate, it should be made easy. Releasing source code, even in unsanitized form, allows for much easier inspection and replication. The research world is also much different today than a century ago. Today the field is crowded with researchers who must publish or perish. The speed of papers, many of which are in fact nonsense, is churning out is unprecedented. As a result, a paper that can be verified but is hard to verified is often never properly verified at all.
dagw 11y ago
Reproducibility in science doesn't mean "easy" reproducibility of experiments. No, but making it easy as reasonably possible or at least not going out of your way to make it hard would be nice.