35 ms·
> It would provide huge shortcuts, given how many experiments get essentially repeated over the years. Isn't that the whole point of insisting on reproducibili
by kijin 15y ago
> It would provide huge shortcuts, given how many experiments get essentially repeated over the years.
Isn't that the whole point of insisting on reproducibility? Scientists are supposed to repeat experiments as many times as it takes to convince the rest of the scientific community that their results are valid. Reproducibility, not publication, is the final QA mechanism for science. Shortcuts are sometimes desirable (e.g. if people are dying right now), but they're the exception, not the norm.
- zerostar07 15y agoI 'm not talking about reproducibility as validation, but about the fact that multiple studies can be combined to discover new regularities. An example from neuroscience: hundreds of labs recording from the brains of genetically similar mice doing very similar tasks under slightly different conditions, but we have no way of looking at the raw recordings in a systematic way.