Re:Robot scientist finds less than one third of scientific r...
by readthenotes1 on Thursday April 07, 2022 @02:40PM
(#30948656)
Something doesn't add up:
"
...attempted to reproduce the 74 results. Statistically significant evidence for repeatability was found for 43 papers, meaning that the results were replicable under identical conditions; and significant evidence for reproducibility or robustness was found in 22 papers, meaning the results were replicable by different scientists under similar conditions. In two cases, the automation made serendipitous discoveries.
While only 22 out of 74 papers were found to be reproducible in this experiment,... "
Shouldn't that be 9 were NOT reproducible since 65 we're reproducible?
Or does "results were replicable" mean something other than reproducible?
Re:Robot scientist finds less than one third of scientific r...
by spicybright on Thursday April 07, 2022 @01:29PM
(#30947672)
Their sample size was only 74 papers from one field of study.
It's easy to get onto the "science isn't working" bandwagon, but how about some more convincing evidence to prove it's happening as widespread as the claims they're making are.
You know... maybe treating it a bit more scientifically to prove your point.
Re:Robot scientist finds less than one third of scientific r...
by lol_what on Friday April 08, 2022 @01:05PM
(#30959712)
things like replication crisis being a matter of discourse is part of the scientific process. scientists notice results don't add up and slowly over time the thing corrects.
Re:Robot scientist finds less than one third of scientific r...
by happytoexplain on Thursday April 07, 2022 @01:51PM
(#30947996)
There's a universe of difference between avoiding blind faith and distrusting "academia", which is a very broad category. We all only have the information that is available to us.
Re:Robot scientist finds less than one third of scientific r...
by nitwit005 on Thursday April 07, 2022 @04:47PM
(#30950140)
I went through the first 8 results or so, and none of them actually provide a quote of someone saying that. Rather, they seem mostly critiques of the mantra, which I assume was being used on Facebook and things at the time most of those articles were written.
Re:Robot scientist finds less than one third of scientific r...
by smegsicle on Thursday April 07, 2022 @04:27PM
(#30949931)
science is a process, not an assertion of the correctness of a certain viewpoint
'trusting science' is a paradoxical phrase, and when used in the context of coercing behavior and thought in a particular direction is anti-science, no matter how peer-reviewed and authority-supported that direction is
" ...attempted to reproduce the 74 results. Statistically significant evidence for repeatability was found for 43 papers, meaning that the results were replicable under identical conditions; and significant evidence for reproducibility or robustness was found in 22 papers, meaning the results were replicable by different scientists under similar conditions. In two cases, the automation made serendipitous discoveries.
While only 22 out of 74 papers were found to be reproducible in this experiment,... "
Shouldn't that be 9 were NOT reproducible since 65 we're reproducible?
Or does "results were replicable" mean something other than reproducible?
It's easy to get onto the "science isn't working" bandwagon, but how about some more convincing evidence to prove it's happening as widespread as the claims they're making are.
You know... maybe treating it a bit more scientifically to prove your point.
If it doesn't work for a well-picked sample, it probably doesn't work for the real world.
No results.
erroneously referring to academia as 'science', but it can't be interpreted any other way
'trusting science' is a paradoxical phrase, and when used in the context of coercing behavior and thought in a particular direction is anti-science, no matter how peer-reviewed and authority-supported that direction is