5 ms·

ATLAS, CMS, ALICE, LHCb, etc. are all different experiments that just happen to share the same accelerator. They are done using different detectors, designed, b

ATLAS, CMS, ALICE, LHCb, etc. are all different experiments that just happen to share the same accelerator. They are done using different detectors, designed, built, operated and the data is analyzed by different groups of people. If you follow your logic, that the different experiments using the same accelerator negates the whole thing, to the extreme then doing two experiments on the same planet/solar system/universe won't be enough.. And I don't buy your inverse argument that one (good) experiment is good enough either. It is very difficult to tell from outside the group if the experiment is actually good or not (although you probably can tell if it's bad). Screw-ups can happen no matter how many people look at the data if there is some flaw in the experimental setup - only way to make really sure is to use different experiments to measure the same thing.

misnome 10y ago
I think you've got my argument completely backwards - I'm pointing out that if repetition as implied by the article is everything, then results from e.g. the LHC are discounted. Similarly, I am not saying that you don't need to repeat - just that it isn't the be all and end all of what defines 'science'. Supporting this interpretation is that I mentioned DAMA. Nobody is accusing them of not taking care, but nobody really believes the result either.
- batbomb 10y ago
  In fact, CMS and ATLAS are sort of same experiment repeated twice, just in parallel rather than serially. Repeatable doesn't imply identical experimental design.
  - bordercases 10y ago
    Does it not? If the experimental design is not preserved, don't you open yourself to inconsistent controls between the experiments? Where do you draw the line?
    - shkkmo 10y ago
      If you think about it, complete replication of any experiment is useless, and impossible. But that doesn't matter, because it is not the experiment you are trying to replicate, is the effect or the observation. Carefully changing the design of the experiment can allow to verify that your explanation of the effect or observation is accurate. Of course, if the change the experiment too much, a failure to replicated will have less useful information.
      - bordercases 10y ago
        In hindsight I do think it's true that you want numerous experiments with possibly different controls with the exception of whatever is important for the effect. In that sense you want your experiment to "discover the right abstraction" of details that your principle works over. So I think what has to occur is a gradual "loosening up" of the controls from strict replication to weak replication, with both types of replication giving information about the effect you are testing: its validity and its generality, respectively.
- noobermin 10y ago
  There is a philosophical assumption underpining astronomy and cosmology, the so-called "cosmological principle."[0] This is an assumption (albeit not completely unfalsifiable) that physics across the universe at large scales is the same for all observers, that here on earth there should be similar to physics in andromeda. Of course, all scientific experiments done have been done on or near earth, and thus, our interpretation of astronomy on earth is tempered by experiments we do here, for example, we assume that the speed of light here is the same as the speed of light elsewhere. This is, in principle, a problem. We unfortunately have no way to measure the speed of light in andromeda, unlike what we can here on earth, so we really have no idea if our astronomical models are wrong given the non-constancy of the speed of light in andromeda or elsewhere. So, yes, in principle not being able to repeat science experiments everywhere in the universe is a problem. However, I think if one thinks a little less broadly, testing newtonian gravity in say, Italy and also in China shows at least across the Earth, the phenomenon is similar. Then, at least one can say, "certainly, gravity is the same in Italy and China, and perhaps across the surface of the Earth." That is a stronger statement than "gravity is this way in Italy." Ordering claims by "scientific goodness", we can say that Gravity is the same *across the universe* > gravity is the same across the Earth > gravity is in Italy My point here is that even if one can't fulfill the extreme of testing theories everywhere in the universe, one can progressively prove stronger and stronger statements regarding the validity of scientific theories. Somewhere the LHC stands between "the SM is validated across the universe" and "the SM is validated at one detector at the LHC". Yes, it would be "better" if the Higgs was found at other experiments, but the current situation is "better" than if the Higgs was found at one detector there and not in any other. Repeatability, like everything in science, is not a binary step function but is some continuous function over the domain [0,1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
  - andrepd 10y ago
    But we can measure gravity in faraway galaxies. We don't need to actually go there, we have telescopes :)
    - 10y ago
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- greglindahl 10y ago
  I read the article carefully, and was unable to find where it says what you say it says. In particular, you're making super-strong statements like "be all and end all of what defines 'science'" -- that's not what I see in the article. The article is reasonably pointing out that we have a repetition crisis and that more emphasis should be placed on it. That's not the various super-strong things you're claiming you see in it.
  - euyyn 10y ago
    The very title claims that unrepeated results shouldn't be accepted.
    - sn9 10y ago
      The contents of the article are the only thing that ever matters. The title is picked by editors to get the most people to click on it.
      - ycombinatorMan 10y ago
        I think the title is all that matters. I'm only here for the discussion, and the title defines the topic.
        oldmanjay 10y ago
        Your approach will lead you to having an incorrect take quite often. You should reconsider unless you enjoy being wrong for no particular reason.
        ycombinatorMan 10y ago
        Well it hasnt, and Ive had this "approach" for years.
        sn9 10y ago

misnome 10y ago

I think you've got my argument completely backwards - I'm pointing out that if repetition as implied by the article is everything, then results from e.g. the LHC are discounted. Similarly, I am not saying that you don't need to repeat - just that it isn't the be all and end all of what defines 'science'. Supporting this interpretation is that I mentioned DAMA. Nobody is accusing them of not taking care, but nobody really believes the result either.

batbomb 10y ago
In fact, CMS and ATLAS are sort of same experiment repeated twice, just in parallel rather than serially. Repeatable doesn't imply identical experimental design.
- bordercases 10y ago
  Does it not? If the experimental design is not preserved, don't you open yourself to inconsistent controls between the experiments? Where do you draw the line?
  - shkkmo 10y ago
    If you think about it, complete replication of any experiment is useless, and impossible. But that doesn't matter, because it is not the experiment you are trying to replicate, is the effect or the observation. Carefully changing the design of the experiment can allow to verify that your explanation of the effect or observation is accurate. Of course, if the change the experiment too much, a failure to replicated will have less useful information.
    - bordercases 10y ago
      In hindsight I do think it's true that you want numerous experiments with possibly different controls with the exception of whatever is important for the effect. In that sense you want your experiment to "discover the right abstraction" of details that your principle works over. So I think what has to occur is a gradual "loosening up" of the controls from strict replication to weak replication, with both types of replication giving information about the effect you are testing: its validity and its generality, respectively.
noobermin 10y ago
There is a philosophical assumption underpining astronomy and cosmology, the so-called "cosmological principle."[0] This is an assumption (albeit not completely unfalsifiable) that physics across the universe at large scales is the same for all observers, that here on earth there should be similar to physics in andromeda. Of course, all scientific experiments done have been done on or near earth, and thus, our interpretation of astronomy on earth is tempered by experiments we do here, for example, we assume that the speed of light here is the same as the speed of light elsewhere. This is, in principle, a problem. We unfortunately have no way to measure the speed of light in andromeda, unlike what we can here on earth, so we really have no idea if our astronomical models are wrong given the non-constancy of the speed of light in andromeda or elsewhere. So, yes, in principle not being able to repeat science experiments everywhere in the universe is a problem. However, I think if one thinks a little less broadly, testing newtonian gravity in say, Italy and also in China shows at least across the Earth, the phenomenon is similar. Then, at least one can say, "certainly, gravity is the same in Italy and China, and perhaps across the surface of the Earth." That is a stronger statement than "gravity is this way in Italy." Ordering claims by "scientific goodness", we can say that Gravity is the same *across the universe* > gravity is the same across the Earth > gravity is in Italy My point here is that even if one can't fulfill the extreme of testing theories everywhere in the universe, one can progressively prove stronger and stronger statements regarding the validity of scientific theories. Somewhere the LHC stands between "the SM is validated across the universe" and "the SM is validated at one detector at the LHC". Yes, it would be "better" if the Higgs was found at other experiments, but the current situation is "better" than if the Higgs was found at one detector there and not in any other. Repeatability, like everything in science, is not a binary step function but is some continuous function over the domain [0,1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
- andrepd 10y ago
  But we can measure gravity in faraway galaxies. We don't need to actually go there, we have telescopes :)
  - 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
greglindahl 10y ago
I read the article carefully, and was unable to find where it says what you say it says. In particular, you're making super-strong statements like "be all and end all of what defines 'science'" -- that's not what I see in the article. The article is reasonably pointing out that we have a repetition crisis and that more emphasis should be placed on it. That's not the various super-strong things you're claiming you see in it.
- euyyn 10y ago
  The very title claims that unrepeated results shouldn't be accepted.
  - sn9 10y ago
    The contents of the article are the only thing that ever matters. The title is picked by editors to get the most people to click on it.
    - ycombinatorMan 10y ago
      I think the title is all that matters. I'm only here for the discussion, and the title defines the topic.
      - oldmanjay 10y ago
        Your approach will lead you to having an incorrect take quite often. You should reconsider unless you enjoy being wrong for no particular reason.
        ycombinatorMan 10y ago
        Well it hasnt, and Ive had this "approach" for years.
        sn9 10y ago