3 ms·
This live crowdsourced approach is a far better way to test and refine hypotheses than peer review and the current state of science journals.
by jboggan 3y ago
This live crowdsourced approach is a far better way to test and refine hypotheses than peer review and the current state of science journals.
- oldgradstudent 3y agoThat's how it has always been done. During the 1989 cold fusion fiasco, the findings were announced in a press conference, pre-prints were circulated in the community, and many groups attempted to reproduce the results. The first publication came weeks later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
- oneshtein 3y agoMy reply to you was cut off by dang.
- mjfl 3y agorequires a really significant result in order to demand widespread effort in to replicate.
- danbruc 3y agoOnly as long as the experiments are reasonably simple. There are probably still some things requiring only simple experiments to be discovered, but most of the low hanging fruit has probably already been consumed by a couple of centuries of experimentation and scientific progress.
- constantcrying 3y agoThe single most famous mathematical result this century (solution ofthe Poincaré conjecture) was verified by consensus after the claimed proof was published to arxiv.
- danbruc 3y agoWhich falls into the category where I said it would be possible - you don't have to bring your own Hadron collider but only your brain in order to check whether the proof is correct. Admittedly not any brain will do, so in a sense you still need some specialized equipment.