4 ms·
I think at one point we're gonna have to stop calling this scientific studies unless it has been tested and repeated by at least 2 other independent labs. Or w
by jmnicolas 12y ago
I think at one point we're gonna have to stop calling this scientific studies unless it has been tested and repeated by at least 2 other independent labs.
Or we can continue like this and let the word science lose its meaning.
- nezza-_- 12y agoIt's still a scientific study, we just shouldn't rely on something which was 'proven'/observed by only a single study.
- kbart 12y agoExactly. I'm always sceptical when I see "groundbreaking breakthrough" (or similar exaggeration) in a title, unless the results can be confirmed/reproduced by the 3rd party. More often then not, such "discoveries" are later proved to be some kind of error (intentional or not).
- smackfu 12y agoThis is how the system is supposed to work. You create an experiment, you perform it, if there are interesting results you publish them. Then since it's public, other people can try to reproduce the results. If they do, the results are stronger. If not, there must have been a mistake. The fact that the press tends to report on the initial experimental results as INFALLIBLE SCIENTIFIC TRUTH is not the fault of the scientists.
- arethuza 12y agoI think Jacob Bronowski summed it up nicely: "Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible."
- epistasis 12y ago100% agree with this. Further, it's important for the "mistake" to be out in the public for everybody to see, because it implies a change in the paradigm of what's required for repeatable experiments; some unknown factor that needs to be reported. And discovery of those new, unknown factors are where the exciting discoveries come from! Fields where we know all the governing principles are really boring, IMHO.
- oldmanjay 12y agoif we do that it will mean the end of sociology as a meaningful discipline. think of the sociologists!