Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following "best practi...
by hytfyiv3j on Saturday January 06, 2024 @07:47AM
(#38890992)
In software I have found getting the exact details and parameters very useful even if I don't intend to use them. Because when I try to do the same thing my own way and fail, then I can reference the original ones and gradually make my own version more and more similar to that, and see when it starts working. Or make their version more and more similar to mine and see when it breaks. This allows quickly easily identifying the critical difference.
Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following "best practi...
by zelphirkalt on Saturday January 06, 2024 @07:56PM
(#38897235)
If we cannot reproduce research results, due to missing the data, parameters, or code, or whatever else, is it not cargo culting, to take that research result and blindly believe it and build on top of it? If I remember correctly, Feynman stated in the same video, that one should actually reconstruct or reproduce the experimental results we rely on.
Proper reproducible research is not like that. It's about providing sufficient details that other people in the field can extrapolate the rest. That they can use similar methods with similar data to achieve similar results.
Reproducing exactly the same result is not that valuable, as the "result" could be just an artifact of the specific data and specific methodology. Real validation depends on fully independent replications, with as little reuse of data and code as reasonably possible.