5 ms·

>For example, celestial events are almost never reproducible. Our understanding of celestial mechanics nonetheless rests on solid science. I am not sure this i

>For example, celestial events are almost never reproducible. Our understanding of celestial mechanics nonetheless rests on solid science. I am not sure this is correct. The rules that govern celestial bodies is same as the ones that govern objects on earth. So why are they not reproducible? It does not require to measure forces between celestial bodies to measure the value of G. Measuring the forces between two masses on earth is enough.

lisper 9y ago
Yes, of course the rules are the same. Figuring this out was the event that launched the entire modern scientific endeavor. But nonetheless, the experimental data that went into this discovery was largely non-reproducible. The stars and planets go where they go and only very rarely does a given configuration repeat itself. In fact, no configuration ever really repeats itself in every detail. So, for example, we can predict with ridiculous accuracy where the next total solar eclipse is going to happen. But once it happens, we can't roll back the clock and make it happen again.
- buvanshak 9y ago
  > But nonetheless, the experimental data that went into this discovery was largely non-reproducible. I am finding a hard time to grasp what you are telling here. If you deduce a set of laws A from an event X, you don't need X to repeat to check the validity of A. You can check it against another event Y, where you predict its characteristics using A. If the laws are valid, the prediction ll match the actual observation..
  - lisper 9y ago
    Yes, all that is true. What does that have to do with reproducibility? You're talking about doing a lot of different experiments to test a single theory. Reproducibility is about doing the same experiment over again to see if you get the same results as the first time you did it, i.e. reproduce the results.
    - buvanshak 9y ago
      > What does that have to do with reproducibility? That is exactly what I wanted to ask you originally when you cited the celestial mechanics example. It is not relevant in cases we are deriving a theory underlying the behavior, rather than axiomizing the very specific behavior itself...
      - lisper 9y ago
        I don't understand the difference between "deriving a theory underlying the behavior" and "axiomizing [sic] the very specific behavior itself."
        buvanshak 9y ago
        Suppose you see an object A, moving straight line getting caught in the gravity of object B, ending up in a orbit around it. Deriving an underlying theory would be deducing the force of gravity from it. Axiomizing the very specific behavior would be making a rule that says. "If the object A (and object A only), while moving in a straight line, comes at so and so coordinates with respective to B, will end up in an orbit around it"
        lisper 9y ago
        Ah. So these are two completely orthogonal issues. The question of what you do with the result of an experiment is completely independent of whether or not you can reproduce that result. The latter is what is under discussion here. So you can, for example, observe that there was a solar eclipse at a particular time and a particular place. But you cannot repeat that observation. (By way of contrast, you can drop and object from a particular height and observe that it takes a particular time to fall. You can repeat that observation.) What you do with those observations has (almost) nothing to do with whether or not you can repeat them.

lisper 9y ago

Yes, of course the rules are the same. Figuring this out was the event that launched the entire modern scientific endeavor. But nonetheless, the experimental data that went into this discovery was largely non-reproducible. The stars and planets go where they go and only very rarely does a given configuration repeat itself. In fact, no configuration ever really repeats itself in every detail. So, for example, we can predict with ridiculous accuracy where the next total solar eclipse is going to happen. But once it happens, we can't roll back the clock and make it happen again.

buvanshak 9y ago
> But nonetheless, the experimental data that went into this discovery was largely non-reproducible. I am finding a hard time to grasp what you are telling here. If you deduce a set of laws A from an event X, you don't need X to repeat to check the validity of A. You can check it against another event Y, where you predict its characteristics using A. If the laws are valid, the prediction ll match the actual observation..
- lisper 9y ago
  Yes, all that is true. What does that have to do with reproducibility? You're talking about doing a lot of different experiments to test a single theory. Reproducibility is about doing the same experiment over again to see if you get the same results as the first time you did it, i.e. reproduce the results.
  - buvanshak 9y ago
    > What does that have to do with reproducibility? That is exactly what I wanted to ask you originally when you cited the celestial mechanics example. It is not relevant in cases we are deriving a theory underlying the behavior, rather than axiomizing the very specific behavior itself...
    - lisper 9y ago
      I don't understand the difference between "deriving a theory underlying the behavior" and "axiomizing [sic] the very specific behavior itself."
      - buvanshak 9y ago
        Suppose you see an object A, moving straight line getting caught in the gravity of object B, ending up in a orbit around it. Deriving an underlying theory would be deducing the force of gravity from it. Axiomizing the very specific behavior would be making a rule that says. "If the object A (and object A only), while moving in a straight line, comes at so and so coordinates with respective to B, will end up in an orbit around it"
        lisper 9y ago
        Ah. So these are two completely orthogonal issues. The question of what you do with the result of an experiment is completely independent of whether or not you can reproduce that result. The latter is what is under discussion here. So you can, for example, observe that there was a solar eclipse at a particular time and a particular place. But you cannot repeat that observation. (By way of contrast, you can drop and object from a particular height and observe that it takes a particular time to fall. You can repeat that observation.) What you do with those observations has (almost) nothing to do with whether or not you can repeat them.