3 ms·
Technically, it's the same data as before, so it's not the same thing as when you replicate an experiment in other fields, by going and getting more data. "Fai
by pekk 14y ago
Technically, it's the same data as before, so it's not the same thing as when you replicate an experiment in other fields, by going and getting more data.
"Failure to replicate" means "we didn't find it happening when we checked again," not "we couldn't figure out how they screwed up their analysis".
- jere 14y agoYea, I was quite confused by the word replicate here. I thought it specifically meant the results in the original were valid.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- ianb 14y agoSometimes people will distinguish between "replicating a result" and "reproducing an experiment" – with the differences more prominent when you are dealing with straight data. Replicating a result simply means you confirm that the results aren't made up – you start with what they say they started with, you get the result they say. Reproducing an experiment might mean working from their conclusions, not trying to repeat every detail, and seeing if you come up with the same result – you might not if you mess up the experiment, but you might also confirm the interpretation of the result because you've eliminated aspects that the theory considers insignificant. With results derived strictly from data this is a clearer line, as repeating the process exactly is quite possible (the spreadsheet in this case is the "process"). This might seem trivial, but it's pretty common that even repeating the purported process is very hard. From a techy point of view this post helped me see the distinction: http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/replication-i.html http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/replication-i.html