4 ms·
The wikipedia one is ok, but really most of that is stuffed into my #1 and it treats the "forming and testing a hypothesis" part too superficially. What did I w
by nonbel 8y ago
The wikipedia one is ok, but really most of that is stuffed into my #1 and it treats the "forming and testing a hypothesis" part too superficially. What did I write that makes you think the two are in conflict?
I wrote:
"figure out what situations naturally arise or that can be devised that produce consistent, stable phenomenon."
This is the same as figuring out the "reproducible manner".
- rantanplan 8y agoI don't think you understood what I took issue with in your post. You said: > Passing peer review is something used as a substitute for reproducibility And what I'm saying is "No, it's not". Reproducibility of the results is the most important aspect of the scientific method, otherwise, as I said above: "what's the point really? We would resort to trust or belief in one's sayings."
- nonbel 8y agoOh. I never said that was a good thing. Institutionalized peer review as its done today is a relatively new thing, introduced post-WWII. Ie, that statement was descriptive, not normative. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/peer-review-not-old-you-might-think https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/peer-review-no...
- rantanplan 8y agoOK, thanks for clarifying, I obviously misread your comment.