4 ms·
I like this. Requiring reproduction is several bridges to far. But requiring reproducibility seems complete reasonable!
by BurningFrog 3y ago
I like this.
Requiring reproduction is several bridges to far.
But requiring reproducibility seems complete reasonable!
- swayvil 3y agoSo you just take their word for it? Pretend that reading about it is equivalent to seeing it?
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoMany scientists reading an article will seek to extend the work in the article, not duplicate it. If the extension fails then they may spend the effort to replicate the original results. Even reproduction doesn't solve the problem of theoretical errors: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36230450 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36230450
- swayvil 3y agoReproduction strikes me as the first significant step in extending and debugging. But that's just me.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoEngineering and Science go hand in hand, but one is one and the other is the other.
- BurningFrog 3y agoThat's the current system. I suggest an improvement.
- notyofriend 3y agoIf it’s not worth reproducing it’s not worth publishing imo
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoUntil grants explicitly grant money for an independent lab to reproduce the research they are paying for (effectively almost doubling the grant amount), no one is going to spend their hard-won funds on reproducing someone else's research. At least not in a timely manner. What such a requirement would do is dramatically scale back research, and highly incentivize researchers to lie, or the "independent labs" to fudge in order to keep drawing funding from their collaborators.
- vlovich123 3y agoIs it a jobs program or are we investing money to get to the truth of things?
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoGranting agencies, whether government or NGO, typically want certain kinds of applied science results. I think "truth" is more assumed than the explicit goal.
- Qem 3y ago> Until grants explicitly grant money for an independent lab to reproduce the research they are paying for (effectively almost doubling the grant amount) I think a lot of money would be saved by avoiding researchers to waste resources in dead ends, by trying to build upon results that can't be reproduced. So not exactly double.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoI completely agree, but unfortunately it's not the same money that is in the initial grant, it's someone else's money. So by granting more money granting agencies can theoretically save some other granting agency's money, but not necessarily their own. Meanwhile that other granting agency will get a lot more bang for their buck (and quantitatively more prestigious results) than the first granting agency. Bad incentive structures.
- 3y ago