28 ms·
The article uses both the terms reproduce and replicate, but doesn't go into the difference, and seems to use the them with just the opposite meanings they've h
by ar-jan 11y ago
The article uses both the terms reproduce and replicate, but doesn't go into the difference, and seems to use the them with just the opposite meanings they've had in academic use - roughly speaking:
Reproduce - to verify a study's results by re-analyzing the same data.
Replicate - to re-do the whole experiment.
Though the terminology is not quite intuitive, and there are other relevant distinctions to make. See http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=21956 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=21956 for some discussion of the history.
- pc2g4d 11y agoI had never heard of this distinction, and I also dislike it. This definition of "reproduce" seems to fly in the face of the word's more general meaning. "Verify" and "re-analyze" seem like a more natural fit. Yes, we need a way of describing those two different things. But using "reproduce" and "replicate" (which, as the article showed by its actual usage, tend to be seen as synonymous) does not seem like a good way to go.
- arcanus 11y ago> which, as the article showed by its actual usage, tend to be seen as synonymous In the sciences, language often takes on an entirely different meaning than in popular lexicon. This is one of the reasons I cringe every time I hear someone state, 'It is just a theory'. > "Verify" and "re-analyze" seem like a more natural fit. At least in my field (computational science), verification already has a very specific meaning. Overloading terms is avoided, although that also happens. In terms of successful communication between scientists, it is far more important for everyone to agree on the meaning of a term than what particular word is used itself. But perhaps this is also accounts for difficulties communicating important results to non-specialists...
- pc2g4d 11y agoPossible compromise: let the scientists have their terminology, and let general audience publications like the Economist have theirs. Mostly I just don't like the idea that the Economist article's usage is "wrong" just because some scientists use different terminology. Different spheres of interest will always be tripping over each other's terms when they come into contact; too many pixels have already been spilled trying to remedy this inevitable occurrence (mine included!)
- collyw 11y ago"Hacker" being a perfect example of this in the tech world.