4 ms·

I feel like the author of this tweet wasn’t saying step-by-step isn’t worthy, he was saying that non-reproducible results are not science. He emphasizes this tw

by _gabe_ 3y ago

I feel like the author of this tweet wasn’t saying step-by-step isn’t worthy, he was saying that non-reproducible results are not science. He emphasizes this twice in that tweet: > one experiment on one data set with seed picking is not worthy reporting > Additionally, we all need to understand this is just one good empirical result, now we need to make it useful…

low_tech_love 3y ago
Exactly, and I tend to agree with him. I argued some time ago here that a paper should take some time to try to explain why its results are happening, at least from a reasonable hypothesis (people didn't seem to agree). An experiment (even a simple one) starts from a null hypothesis and tries to disprove it. However, most of what we see coming out of "scientific" papers is basically just engineering, I guess?: we put all of these things together in some way (out of pure guess and/or preference bias) and these results happened. We don't know why, good luck figuring it out. Here is one example where it works (don't ask where it doesn't; we intentionally kept those out). And while I obviously value very much the engineering advances we have seen, the science is still lacking, because not enough people are trying to understand why these things are happening. Although engineering advances are important and valuable, I don't understand exactly why people try so hard to call themselves scientists if they are basically skipping the scientific process entirely.
- jimbokun 3y ago
  Lots of onions in the varnish.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
roguas 3y ago
Is it non-reproducible? Also results which reproducibility can be measured and appears stable is perfectly good science. I dislike when people throw statements like that.
- _gabe_ 3y ago
  I have no idea. The author of that tweet seems to imply that the results aren’t reproducible. I was just commenting to point out that the author’s intent may have been different from what the grandparent comment was saying.

by _gabe_ 3y ago

low_tech_love 3y ago

Exactly, and I tend to agree with him. I argued some time ago here that a paper should take some time to try to explain why its results are happening, at least from a reasonable hypothesis (people didn't seem to agree). An experiment (even a simple one) starts from a null hypothesis and tries to disprove it. However, most of what we see coming out of "scientific" papers is basically just engineering, I guess?: we put all of these things together in some way (out of pure guess and/or preference bias) and these results happened. We don't know why, good luck figuring it out. Here is one example where it works (don't ask where it doesn't; we intentionally kept those out). And while I obviously value very much the engineering advances we have seen, the science is still lacking, because not enough people are trying to understand why these things are happening. Although engineering advances are important and valuable, I don't understand exactly why people try so hard to call themselves scientists if they are basically skipping the scientific process entirely.

jimbokun 3y ago
Lots of onions in the varnish.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

roguas 3y ago

Is it non-reproducible? Also results which reproducibility can be measured and appears stable is perfectly good science. I dislike when people throw statements like that.

_gabe_ 3y ago
I have no idea. The author of that tweet seems to imply that the results aren’t reproducible. I was just commenting to point out that the author’s intent may have been different from what the grandparent comment was saying.