5 ms·
Robot scientist finds less than one third of scientific results are reproducible
- johndunne 5y agoThey should have used a smarter robot.
- longivitate 5y agoIt is long past time when the majority of paper results could be written in machine verifiable language.
- spicybright 5y agoI don't know how you'd even test the accuracy of the "robot" without having a human do it correctly to compare with.
- smegsicle 5y ago"trust the academia"
- slothtrop 5y agoSaid who?
- smegsicle 5y agoparaphrase of the director of the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases
- slothtrop 5y agohttps://duckduckgo.com/?q=fauci+%22trust+the+academia%22&t=h_&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fauci+%22trust+the+academia%22&t=h... No results.
- smegsicle 5y agohttps://html.duckduckgo.com/html?q=fauci%20%22trust%20the%20science%22 https://html.duckduckgo.com/html?q=fauci%20%22trust%20the%20... erroneously referring to academia as 'science', but it can't be interpreted any other way
- slothtrop 5y agoSounds like the error is yours. Trusting science isn't tantamount to trusting academia.
- smegsicle 5y agoscience is a process, not an assertion of the correctness of a certain viewpoint 'trusting science' is a paradoxical phrase, and when used in the context of coercing behavior and thought in a particular direction is anti-science, no matter how peer-reviewed and authority-supported that direction is
- nitwit005 5y agoI went through the first 8 results or so, and none of them actually provide a quote of someone saying that. Rather, they seem mostly critiques of the mantra, which I assume was being used on Facebook and things at the time most of those articles were written.
- happytoexplain 5y agoThere's a universe of difference between avoiding blind faith and distrusting "academia", which is a very broad category. We all only have the information that is available to us.
- nitwit005 5y agoI doubt even the authors of these papers would tell you to blindly trust them.
- twoxproblematic 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- meremortals 5y agoBalaji Srinivasan recently discussed the importance of scientific reproducibility on The Knowledge Project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlY8HICFiRs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlY8HICFiRs
- spicybright 5y agoTheir sample size was only 74 papers from one field of study. It's easy to get onto the "science isn't working" bandwagon, but how about some more convincing evidence to prove it's happening as widespread as the claims they're making are. You know... maybe treating it a bit more scientifically to prove your point.
- Isinlor 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Prevalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Prevalence
- Bancakes 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergeometric_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergeometric_distribution If it doesn't work for a well-picked sample, it probably doesn't work for the real world.
- lol_what 5y agothings like replication crisis being a matter of discourse is part of the scientific process. scientists notice results don't add up and slowly over time the thing corrects.
- poulpy123 5y agoBut is this paper reproducible and verifiable ?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- readthenotes1 5y agoSomething doesn't add up: " ...attempted to reproduce the 74 results. Statistically significant evidence for repeatability was found for 43 papers, meaning that the results were replicable under identical conditions; and significant evidence for reproducibility or robustness was found in 22 papers, meaning the results were replicable by different scientists under similar conditions. In two cases, the automation made serendipitous discoveries. While only 22 out of 74 papers were found to be reproducible in this experiment,... " Shouldn't that be 9 were NOT reproducible since 65 we're reproducible? Or does "results were replicable" mean something other than reproducible?
- mwint 5y agoProbably the 22 is a subset of the 43.