Replication of results - Revision history

Koidevelopment at 18:14, May 9, 2017

2017-05-09T18:14:22Z

SamHB: quick summary of what it means

2017-05-09T18:02:19Z

quick summary of what it means

SamHB: Try to put refs into modern format. This may not have been done very well.

2017-05-09T17:58:25Z

Try to put refs into modern format. This may not have been done very well.

Abcqwe: grammar, encyclopedic tone

2017-05-09T17:23:01Z

grammar, encyclopedic tone

DavidB4-bot: /* top */Spelling/Grammar Check, typos fixed: the the → the

2016-06-24T14:43:44Z

top: Spelling/Grammar Check, typos fixed: the the → the

Ed Poor: rearrange

2012-08-28T16:54:37Z

rearrange

Ed Poor: mistakes and replication

2012-08-28T16:53:34Z

mistakes and replication

Ed Poor: reduce redirect

2010-12-16T02:08:40Z

reduce redirect

Ed Poor: peer-review is by no means proof against bad science or incorrect findings

2010-12-16T02:07:47Z

peer-review is by no means proof against bad science or incorrect findings

TK: Reverted edits by MikeAndrews (Talk) to last version by CPalmer

2009-06-06T00:42:41Z

Reverted edits by MikeAndrews (Talk) to last version by CPalmer

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 '''Replication of results''' is the ability of an experiment to be reproduced and provide the same results - this is essential to scientific progress and to convincing scientists of a new discovery.  If an experiment is repeated and the results are different, a dispute can cast doubt on the original results.
-Basically, the way scientific discoveries are made is with an article saying "I performed experiment X and got result Y.  You can do the same experiment and check your results.  Here's how I did experiment X."  Other people doing the experiment is what "replication of results" is about.
+Basically, the way scientific discoveries are made is with an article saying "I performed experiment X and got result Y.  You can do the same experiment and check your results.  Here's how I did experiment X."  Other people being able to sucessfully repeat the experiment is what "replication of results" is all about.
 Sometimes mistakes (and sometimes outright frauds) can come from supposedly-reputable institutions and appear in supposedly-reputable journals. Scientific empirical results become firmer when other workers replicate the experiment. Theoretical results become firmer when people repeat the calculation, and/or check for consistency with other theoretical and empirical results. <ref>[http://www.av8n.com/physics/authority.htm article from av8n.com]</ref>

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 '''Replication of results''' is the ability of an experiment to be reproduced and provide the same results - this is essential to scientific progress and to convincing scientists of a new discovery.  If an experiment is repeated and the results are different, a dispute can cast doubt on the original results.
-* Sometimes mistakes (and sometimes outright frauds) can come from supposedly-reputable institutions and appear in supposedly-reputable journals. Scientific empirical results become firmer when other workers replicate the experiment. Theoretical results become firmer when people repeat the calculation, and/or check for consistency with other theoretical and empirical results. <ref>[http://www.av8n.com/physics/authority.htm article from av8n.com]</ref>
+Basically, the way scientific discoveries are made is with an article saying "I performed experiment X and got result Y.  You can do the same experiment and check your results.  Here's how I did experiment X."  Other people doing the experiment is what "replication of results" is about.
 If a scientist makes a claim, and writes it up in the proper format for publication, it may pass [[peer review]], but this does not make it valid. It might get some media play, but it's not going to be added to textbooks on the high school or university level unless other scientists are convinced.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 '''Replication of results''' is the ability of an experiment to be reproduced and provide the same results - this is essential to scientific progress and to convincing scientists of a new discovery.  If an experiment is repeated and the results are different, a dispute can cast doubt on the original results.
-* Sometimes mistakes (and sometimes outright frauds) can come from supposedly-reputable institutions and appear in supposedly-reputable journals. Scientific empirical results become firmer when other workers replicate the experiment. Theoretical results become firmer when people repeat the calculation, and/or check for consistency with other theoretical and empirical results. [http://www.av8n.com/physics/authority.htm]
+* Sometimes mistakes (and sometimes outright frauds) can come from supposedly-reputable institutions and appear in supposedly-reputable journals. Scientific empirical results become firmer when other workers replicate the experiment. Theoretical results become firmer when people repeat the calculation, and/or check for consistency with other theoretical and empirical results. <ref>[http://www.av8n.com/physics/authority.htm article from av8n.com]</ref>
 If a scientist makes a claim, and writes it up in the proper format for publication, it may pass [[peer review]], but this does not make it valid. It might get some media play, but it's not going to be added to textbooks on the high school or university level unless other scientists are convinced.
-* ... [[peer review|peer-review]] is by no means proof against [[junk science|bad science]] or incorrect findings.  It is more of an extended editorial process.  The real test of published science comes later, when the broader community attempts to replicate results. [http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/12/suddenly-skepticism-of-peer-reviewed-science-is-ok.html]
+* ... [[peer review|peer-review]] is by no means proof against [[junk science|bad science]] or incorrect findings.  It is more of an extended editorial process.  The real test of published science comes later, when the broader community attempts to replicate results. <ref>[http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/12/suddenly-skepticism-of-peer-reviewed-science-is-ok.html article from climate-skeptic.com]</ref>
 [[Category:Science]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:23, May 9, 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	'''Replication of results''' is essential ~~for~~ scientific progress.	+	'''Replication of results''' is the ability of an experiment to be reproduced and provide the same results - this is essential to scientific progress and to convincing scientists of a new discovery. If an experiment is repeated and the results are different, a dispute can cast doubt on the original results.
−	~~What is most~~ convincing to a ~~scientists is seeing for himself~~. If ~~it's~~ an experiment ~~which can be performed again, other scientists can satisfy their curiosity by doing the experiment over themselves. If they get~~ the ~~same~~ results, ~~that's~~ a ~~confidence booster. If their results are sufficiently different to shed~~ doubt on the original ~~scientific paper, then we get a [[scientific dispute]]~~.

	* Sometimes mistakes (and sometimes outright frauds) can come from supposedly-reputable institutions and appear in supposedly-reputable journals. Scientific empirical results become firmer when other workers replicate the experiment. Theoretical results become firmer when people repeat the calculation, and/or check for consistency with other theoretical and empirical results. [http://www.av8n.com/physics/authority.htm]		* Sometimes mistakes (and sometimes outright frauds) can come from supposedly-reputable institutions and appear in supposedly-reputable journals. Scientific empirical results become firmer when other workers replicate the experiment. Theoretical results become firmer when people repeat the calculation, and/or check for consistency with other theoretical and empirical results. [http://www.av8n.com/physics/authority.htm]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 '''Replication of results''' is essential for scientific progress.
-What is most convincing to a scientists is seeing for himself. If it's an experiment which can be performed again, other scientists can satisfy their curiosity by doing the experiment over themselves. If they get the same results, that's a confidence booster. If their results are sufficiently different to shed doubt on the the original scientific paper, then we get a [[scientific dispute]].
+What is most convincing to a scientists is seeing for himself. If it's an experiment which can be performed again, other scientists can satisfy their curiosity by doing the experiment over themselves. If they get the same results, that's a confidence booster. If their results are sufficiently different to shed doubt on the original scientific paper, then we get a [[scientific dispute]].
 * Sometimes mistakes (and sometimes outright frauds) can come from supposedly-reputable institutions and appear in supposedly-reputable journals. Scientific empirical results become firmer when other workers replicate the experiment. Theoretical results become firmer when people repeat the calculation, and/or check for consistency with other theoretical and empirical results. [http://www.av8n.com/physics/authority.htm]

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:07, December 16, 2010
Line 2:		Line 2:

	What is most convincing to a scientists is seeing for himself. If it's an experiment which can be performed again, other scientists can satisfy their curiosity by doing the experiment over themselves. If they get the same results, that's a confidence booster. If their results are sufficiently different to shed doubt on the the original scientific paper, then we get a [[scientific dispute]].		What is most convincing to a scientists is seeing for himself. If it's an experiment which can be performed again, other scientists can satisfy their curiosity by doing the experiment over themselves. If they get the same results, that's a confidence booster. If their results are sufficiently different to shed doubt on the the original scientific paper, then we get a [[scientific dispute]].
		+
		+	* ... [[peer-review]] is by no means proof against [[bad science]] or incorrect findings. It is more of an extended editorial process. The real test of published science comes later, when the broader community attempts to replicate results. [http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/12/suddenly-skepticism-of-peer-reviewed-science-is-ok.html]
		+
	[[Category:Science]]		[[Category:Science]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:42, June 6, 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:

	What is most convincing to a scientists is seeing for himself. If it's an experiment which can be performed again, other scientists can satisfy their curiosity by doing the experiment over themselves. If they get the same results, that's a confidence booster. If their results are sufficiently different to shed doubt on the the original scientific paper, then we get a [[scientific dispute]].		What is most convincing to a scientists is seeing for himself. If it's an experiment which can be performed again, other scientists can satisfy their curiosity by doing the experiment over themselves. If they get the same results, that's a confidence booster. If their results are sufficiently different to shed doubt on the the original scientific paper, then we get a [[scientific dispute]].
−
−	A clear example of how replication of results has lead to scientific advancement is in the area of how tobacco smoking effects health. Early studies that showed the link between cancer and smoking were hotly disputed within the scientific community and also by the tobacco industry. As the initial studies were repeated over many years and by many scientist and the initial results were replicated, the link between smoking and cancer (and other diseases) was confirmed. See [[tobacco]] for further information.
−
	[[Category:Science]]		[[Category:Science]]