An interesting thought experiment, but I'm not sure I follow the reasoning of these two statements, which is the crux of why open software fits this mold. 1. R

An interesting thought experiment, but I'm not sure I follow the reasoning of these two statements, which is the crux of why open software fits this mold. 1. Reproducible, meaning executable, as well as modifiable, and 2. Reliable, meaning that the results are consistently trustworthy Why does modifiable fit reproducible. Modifiable fits the open source theme, but not the science theme. Can someone set me straight on this if I am missing something? Number 2 is something I've been thinking about more recently, and the definition of science from the post being "testable hypothesis and predictable". Medicine is testable and predictable, but not reliable. To me reliability is the job of engineering. To take what is known in science and make it reliable. I used to work at CSIRO (Australia's science and technology org) and I remember my boss telling me that researchers always think their work is ready to go from the lab into the real world, but it is our job as engineers to make that translation so that the work outside of the lab. That's what I think about when I think of reliable. Thoughts?