4 ms·

> There's a difference between capital/operational expenditures to reproduce work, and directly paying the owner of the work. But you can reproduce the work wi

> There's a difference between capital/operational expenditures to reproduce work, and directly paying the owner of the work. But you can reproduce the work with a shitton of compute and a massive dataset. They aren’t sharing their exact strategy but the technique is fairly well known. IMHO it really doesn’t matter, advancing science comes from trying different things and not from reproducing someone else’s work to prove it works.

ethbr0 3y ago
> advancing science comes from trying different things and not from reproducing someone else’s work to prove it works I'd say yes/no. Efficiently advancing science definitely leverages well-reported and -reproduced results to skip to building on top of them.
JohnFen 3y ago
> advancing science comes from trying different things and not from reproducing someone else’s work to prove it works. I disagree with this. If scientists aren't reproducing the work of other scientists, then science cannot advance. Reproduction of results is one of the main mechanisms by which science separates reality from fantasy. Of course, if reproducing other's results is the only thing scientists do, that also does not advance understanding. But that doesn't take away the extreme importance of reproducing the experiments of others.
- disgruntledphd2 3y ago
  > I disagree with this. If scientists aren't reproducing the work of other scientists, then science cannot advance. Reproduction of results is one of the main mechanisms by which science separates reality from fantasy. Are you or have you been a professional scientist? Because while that's how it should work, it generally doesn't anymore as it's really, really difficult to get straight replications (which are desperately needed) published.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > Are you or have you been a professional scientist? Not directly, but I've worked as a research assistant in a number of labs for real, professional scientists and I'm a coauthor on a few papers. > it's really, really difficult to get straight replications (which are desperately needed) published. This is a fact. But nonetheless, such replications do get done. Not enough, certainly. But pointing out that the way institutional science is done is flawed doesn't invalidate my point at all.

ethbr0 3y ago

> advancing science comes from trying different things and not from reproducing someone else’s work to prove it works I'd say yes/no. Efficiently advancing science definitely leverages well-reported and -reproduced results to skip to building on top of them.

JohnFen 3y ago

> advancing science comes from trying different things and not from reproducing someone else’s work to prove it works. I disagree with this. If scientists aren't reproducing the work of other scientists, then science cannot advance. Reproduction of results is one of the main mechanisms by which science separates reality from fantasy. Of course, if reproducing other's results is the only thing scientists do, that also does not advance understanding. But that doesn't take away the extreme importance of reproducing the experiments of others.

disgruntledphd2 3y ago
> I disagree with this. If scientists aren't reproducing the work of other scientists, then science cannot advance. Reproduction of results is one of the main mechanisms by which science separates reality from fantasy. Are you or have you been a professional scientist? Because while that's how it should work, it generally doesn't anymore as it's really, really difficult to get straight replications (which are desperately needed) published.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > Are you or have you been a professional scientist? Not directly, but I've worked as a research assistant in a number of labs for real, professional scientists and I'm a coauthor on a few papers. > it's really, really difficult to get straight replications (which are desperately needed) published. This is a fact. But nonetheless, such replications do get done. Not enough, certainly. But pointing out that the way institutional science is done is flawed doesn't invalidate my point at all.