3 ms·

Let me re-iterate my point, because I see a number of commentators here making this logical mistake. When scientist A shows a result, and scientist B can't repr

Let me re-iterate my point, because I see a number of commentators here making this logical mistake. When scientist A shows a result, and scientist B can't reproduce it, it does not mean the result is wrong. Of course the result could be wrong, and, assuming scientist B knows what they are doing, it's an indication that the result is indeed wrong. But it could also be true. This is not a comment on the state of science and whether incentives are set correctly at the moment (they aren't).

kcplate 5y ago
> When scientist A shows a result, and scientist B can't reproduce it, it does not mean the result is wrong Correct, but until scientist A’s result can be reproduced by someone, anyone, relying on scientist A’s result is really more akin to a religious leap of faith, then science. When any belief based on faith alone is presented as an unquestionable truth, it deserves skepticism.