3 ms·

> How do i know? It has happened to me. Something happened to you. But it is not a "reproducibility problem". I guarantee you, at CERN, several teams, and sev

by cauch 4y ago

> How do i know? It has happened to me. Something happened to you. But it is not a "reproducibility problem". I guarantee you, at CERN, several teams, and several experiments, reproduce the results without sharing the code. The Higgs boson was observed with 5 sigma of statistical significance, by Atlas AND CMS, and they did NOT share any code. How do I know? It has happened to me. The problem of reproducibility is not about sharing the code. If the paper does not provide a complete explanation and does not have the code, you will not be able to reproduce it. But if the paper provides a complete explanation and does not have the code, you will be able to reproduce it. Worst, if the paper does not provide a complete explanation and provide the code, you will NOT be able to reproduce the experiment: you will be able to re-run the code, including the part of the code that contains unsound hypotheses, incorrect equations, and ill-advised choices, without having the elements to understand why those things should not be like that. If you have the elements to understand "wait, this code should not do that", then you have the explanation that allows you to rewrite some code from scratch without needing the code in a first place. > I'm sorry by being right I've offended your sensibility to the point that you need to insult me to feel whole again. Sorry if I offended you. The fact that you have no idea of what you are talking about is the result of an observation: you truly don't understand the concept of "reproducibility in science". It is not an opinion, it is a demonstrated fact: I have given real life example where reproducibility is achieved despite not having used the code (for example, the reproducibility of the observation of the Higgs boson despite the code not being shared), while you argued that the lack of code is a problem for reproducibility. The part on the conclusions being worthless is a simple logic consequence: if you base your premises on incorrect understanding, then your conclusion should be discarded. Sorry if you became so emotional that you were unable to read a simple observation and logic statement without imagining it was a personal attack.

bombolo 4y ago
You seem to believe that "science" and "cern" entirely coincide. Maybe studying very small particles made you forget about the rest of the world?
- cauch 4y ago
  Wow, that's probably the worst response you could have made. First, the CERN example was a counter-example. If you say "A implies B" and that someone shows an example where A does not imply B, it does not matter if this is just one example, it still demonstrates that your affirmation is bullshit. Second, you cannot just say "let's just pretend that the rest of the world just works like I want. See, I'm therefore right". If "cern" is just a part of "science", then, it's YOUR JOB to give me the demonstration that the rest of science is different. Until then, your affirmation is the one that is pseudo-science. Until now, all we have is, on one side, someone who has experience in science and who has provided a mechanism to explain why your affirmation is bullshit + a specific counter-example. And on the other side, someone who has just made some big affirmation with nothing below it. Sorry, but I'm pretty sure that everyone can see that you have absolutely nothing to defend your affirmation that was just motivated by a childish "I'm a computer scientist, so my methods are the best, and I'm offended that someone can say that these methods are great in many cases but not in all, so I will invent reasons to pretend they are somehow wrong"

by cauch 4y ago

bombolo 4y ago

You seem to believe that "science" and "cern" entirely coincide. Maybe studying very small particles made you forget about the rest of the world?

cauch 4y ago
Wow, that's probably the worst response you could have made. First, the CERN example was a counter-example. If you say "A implies B" and that someone shows an example where A does not imply B, it does not matter if this is just one example, it still demonstrates that your affirmation is bullshit. Second, you cannot just say "let's just pretend that the rest of the world just works like I want. See, I'm therefore right". If "cern" is just a part of "science", then, it's YOUR JOB to give me the demonstration that the rest of science is different. Until then, your affirmation is the one that is pseudo-science. Until now, all we have is, on one side, someone who has experience in science and who has provided a mechanism to explain why your affirmation is bullshit + a specific counter-example. And on the other side, someone who has just made some big affirmation with nothing below it. Sorry, but I'm pretty sure that everyone can see that you have absolutely nothing to defend your affirmation that was just motivated by a childish "I'm a computer scientist, so my methods are the best, and I'm offended that someone can say that these methods are great in many cases but not in all, so I will invent reasons to pretend they are somehow wrong"