3 ms·
Of course reproducibility isn't necessary. There's a whole subset of sciences (often called the historical sciences) where reproduction is generally impossible
by AlotOfReading 5y ago
Of course reproducibility isn't necessary. There's a whole subset of sciences (often called the historical sciences) where reproduction is generally impossible because of the arrow of time. You can't replicate evolving humans again, as an example.
Nonetheless, reproducibility is a really nice property. You have to be incredibly careful with your theory if it can't be justified.
- euanc 5y agoThat subset of "sciences" aren't sciences by definition if they are not reproducible. They may be useful but they are not sciences.
- AlotOfReading 5y agoIf your personal definition of sciences doesn't include evolutionary biology, geology, or large parts of astronomy, it's a very unusual definition. All I can tell you is that most people would disagree.
- euanc 5y agoThat's ok with me. I think it's very important to distinguish between the two endeavors and ideally have different names for them so we don't get led into these kinds of otherwise unnecessary discussions. The domains you mention seem (to me) generally worthwhile. But it's very hard to articulate exactly why they seem that way given we can't reproduce them which makes their results hard to justify believing in.