3 ms·
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 understan
by 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 agoI 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.