3 ms·
"The more ways to compare experiments, the more sure we will be about results." No. The more exactly you duplicate the original experiment, the more likely you
by jonhendry 15y ago
"The more ways to compare experiments, the more sure we will be about results."
No. The more exactly you duplicate the original experiment, the more likely you duplicate any confounding issues. If someone observes something through a telescope, it's best to verify it through a different telescope somewhere else, to exclude the possibility of an optical quirk of the first telescope.
- ajuc 15y agoSome people will run the same code on the same data. They will get the same results, but so what. Some other people will run the same code on different data (maybe from simulation, or when checking their own theory). They will get some other results, or the same. Some people will recreate experiment from scratch, and get code B and data B. Some people will run code A on data B. Some people will run code B on data A. Now we can't do that. The code is already written, it's waste to hide it, it's not like publishing code prohibit other people from writing their own code. That's how you check for errors - by changing as little as possible and observing results.