3 ms·
> in science, reproducibility is an important qualifier. News alert, an alarming large amount of scientific (published, accepted) experiments aren't reproduce-
by jaxtellerSoA 8y ago
> in science, reproducibility is an important qualifier.
News alert, an alarming large amount of scientific (published, accepted) experiments aren't reproduce-able.
https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970 https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on...
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
- austincheney 8y agoThen I will rephrase to say that in science an experiment gains superior trust and credibility when it is reproducible. Experiments that cannot be reproduced have less or no credibility.
- sn41 8y agoIt would be good if this were true, but this is just another shibboleth. Nothing done in the Large Hadron Collider is reproducible. Theoretically, yes. In practice, no. Only the LHC itself can run those experiments again, and there's always other new things to do. Ultimately, one major factor is the credentials of the experimenters. We may not like it, but some of the major experiments done today do boil down to "proof by authority".
- mAritz 8y agoThere are bigger, better, faster colliders in the works (I think) or will be planned. Won't they be able to reproduce it independently?