3 ms·

Trust but confirm. The entire point of science, and this is not a hyperbole, is that results are reproducible. If the experiment is not reproducible one must t

Trust but confirm. The entire point of science, and this is not a hyperbole, is that results are reproducible. If the experiment is not reproducible one must take the results on faith. There is no such thing as faith based science. In order to build a shared body of knowledge based on scientific facts, then, results must be repeated. It is how different people can talk about the same thing, without fearing an asymmetry of knowledge and understanding about the axioms on which their discussion of the world rests. Otherwise it is faith or religion or narrative, something other than than science.

throwaway729 10y ago
> The entire point of science, and this is not a hyperbole, is that results are reproducible. No, it's not. The point of science -- its end -- is to understand the natural world. Or to cure diseases. Or, more cynically, to learn how build big bombs and more manipulative adverts. Reproducible results are the means, not the end. I know that seems like hair splitting, but it's important. Epistemological purity can do just as much harm as good, because even the most pure science is usually motivated more by "understand the natural world" or "improving our understanding of some relevant mathematical abstraction", rather than by episemological purity itself. To be quite honest about it, I feel that this sort of epistemological purity that insists on reproducability as a good in itself feels a lot like some sort of legalistic religion. > If the experiment is not reproducible one must take the results on faith. There is no such thing as faith based science. I don't think I (or anyone here) is arguing against this. Or against reproducing important experiments. I'm wholly supportive of reproducing results when it makes sense. But I'm also wary of, in a resource-constrained environment, prefering reproducing results over producing good science in the first place. To be concrete about it, I'll always prefer a single (set of) instance(s) of a well-designed and expertly executed experiment over 10 reproductions of a crappy experiment. In the former case I at least know what I don't know. In the latter case, the data from the experiment -- no matter how many times it's reproduced -- might be impossible to interpret in anything approach a useful way. Put simply, a lot of science isn't worth the effort of reproducing. Either because it's crap science, or because the cost of reproducing is too high and the documentation/oversight of the protocol sufficiently rigorous. The point of science isn't an to perfectly adhere to the legalistic tradition of a Baconian religion. The point of science is learn things.
- JustUhThought 10y ago
  Science is a tool. Tools are means, not ends. We use sciene to gather facts we can agree on. But sciene isn't the "truth". Science isn't the facts. It a process. That produces facts. If and only if they are reproducible. Otherwise it is faith, religious, or a narative. What's more, the scientific process is used discretely. One fact at a time. Understanding of our world, its meaning, these things are accumulative, over the entire context of our experience, and utilize things like feelings, and faith, and religion, and narative, to create.
- hx87 10y ago
  The only way we "understand" the natural world is by making verifiable predictions. If those predictions can't be consistently verified, then we don't understand the relevant phenomenon at all, and we haven't learned anything. > To be concrete about it, I'll always prefer a single (set of) instance(s) of a well-designed and expertly executed experiment over 10 reproductions of a crappy experiment. I'd take 2-3 repetitions of a moderately well-designed and moderately executed experiments over either. Even the most well-designed and executed experimental protocols can produce spurious results, due to the stochastic nature of the universe.
  - noobermin 10y ago
    I think the issue here is that scientists want to get funding, have prestige, and perhaps learn about the world in the process. The public wants to be cured of diseases, see new technologies, and learn about the world too. There is a disconnect between the motivation and capability of scientists in the current funding system and what the public wants. So an easy solution is that if the public wants reproduce-able science, they need to pay for it. I'm sure some scientists who couldn't make it into Harvard or Caltech (ie., me) and thus can't do cutting edge science would be happy to take the dollars, have a living, and just reproduce the work of others. But you can't simply declare to scientists they should do X while not enabling them to.

throwaway729 10y ago

> The entire point of science, and this is not a hyperbole, is that results are reproducible. No, it's not. The point of science -- its end -- is to understand the natural world. Or to cure diseases. Or, more cynically, to learn how build big bombs and more manipulative adverts. Reproducible results are the means, not the end. I know that seems like hair splitting, but it's important. Epistemological purity can do just as much harm as good, because even the most pure science is usually motivated more by "understand the natural world" or "improving our understanding of some relevant mathematical abstraction", rather than by episemological purity itself. To be quite honest about it, I feel that this sort of epistemological purity that insists on reproducability as a good in itself feels a lot like some sort of legalistic religion. > If the experiment is not reproducible one must take the results on faith. There is no such thing as faith based science. I don't think I (or anyone here) is arguing against this. Or against reproducing important experiments. I'm wholly supportive of reproducing results when it makes sense. But I'm also wary of, in a resource-constrained environment, prefering reproducing results over producing good science in the first place. To be concrete about it, I'll always prefer a single (set of) instance(s) of a well-designed and expertly executed experiment over 10 reproductions of a crappy experiment. In the former case I at least know what I don't know. In the latter case, the data from the experiment -- no matter how many times it's reproduced -- might be impossible to interpret in anything approach a useful way. Put simply, a lot of science isn't worth the effort of reproducing. Either because it's crap science, or because the cost of reproducing is too high and the documentation/oversight of the protocol sufficiently rigorous. The point of science isn't an to perfectly adhere to the legalistic tradition of a Baconian religion. The point of science is learn things.

JustUhThought 10y ago
Science is a tool. Tools are means, not ends. We use sciene to gather facts we can agree on. But sciene isn't the "truth". Science isn't the facts. It a process. That produces facts. If and only if they are reproducible. Otherwise it is faith, religious, or a narative. What's more, the scientific process is used discretely. One fact at a time. Understanding of our world, its meaning, these things are accumulative, over the entire context of our experience, and utilize things like feelings, and faith, and religion, and narative, to create.
hx87 10y ago
The only way we "understand" the natural world is by making verifiable predictions. If those predictions can't be consistently verified, then we don't understand the relevant phenomenon at all, and we haven't learned anything. > To be concrete about it, I'll always prefer a single (set of) instance(s) of a well-designed and expertly executed experiment over 10 reproductions of a crappy experiment. I'd take 2-3 repetitions of a moderately well-designed and moderately executed experiments over either. Even the most well-designed and executed experimental protocols can produce spurious results, due to the stochastic nature of the universe.
- noobermin 10y ago
  I think the issue here is that scientists want to get funding, have prestige, and perhaps learn about the world in the process. The public wants to be cured of diseases, see new technologies, and learn about the world too. There is a disconnect between the motivation and capability of scientists in the current funding system and what the public wants. So an easy solution is that if the public wants reproduce-able science, they need to pay for it. I'm sure some scientists who couldn't make it into Harvard or Caltech (ie., me) and thus can't do cutting edge science would be happy to take the dollars, have a living, and just reproduce the work of others. But you can't simply declare to scientists they should do X while not enabling them to.