The article starts with "if it's not reproducible, it's not science, right?" And then it goes on to talk about a limited idea of reproducibility, i.e. plain dup

The article starts with "if it's not reproducible, it's not science, right?" And then it goes on to talk about a limited idea of reproducibility, i.e. plain duplication and recipe-style rerunning an analysis. I think there's a more important idea of reproducibility: your ideas have to be reproducible in different settings. We expect scientific rules to apply across a range of settings. If they don't, it's a recipe, it's not science. So the real burden of reproducibility is communicating your ideas so that other people can see how to apply them to other settings, and moreover so that they want to. All the fetishizing of "give me a repo where I can just run 'make'" is, I think, distracting people from this. I wonder if making such a big deal of reproducibility-of-analyses is actually harmful: maybe it'd be a better test of reproducibility-of-science if other researchers had to reproduce your findings based on how you communicated your ideas, i.e. based on your writeup.