Re: <nettime> How computers broke science...

[Michael H Goldhaber <michael@goldhaber.org>]

This strikes me as a complete misunderstanding of scientific reproducibility.
The point is not  to repeat some experiment exactly. It is rather to use at
least significantly different methods to arrive at a similar conclusion as to
what the world is actually like. An identical experiment, using identical
tools, may simply mean making the same mistake.  Important results have to be
far more robust than that.  The details of computer analysis should not be
repeated and need not be even available for that level of certainty to be
established. If they must be, you're  not studying the world, you're studying
the software. 

Best,
Michael

Sent from my iPad

> On Nov 10, 2015, at 8:58 AM, august <august@alien.mur.at> wrote:
> 
> I thought this article might be somewhat relevant for nettime.  We don't
> read too much here about the business of (mostly academic) science.  
> 
> TLDR:  point-and-click and closed-source software makes science hard to
> reproduce.                                                                                                                                                                    
> https://theconversation.com/how-computers-broke-science-and-what-we-can-do-to-fix-it-49938 
> 
> -august
> 
> --------------
> 
> Reproducibility is one of the cornerstones of science. Made popular by
> British scientist Robert Boyle in the 1660s, the idea is that a
> discovery should be reproducible before being accepted as scientific
> knowledge.
 <...>


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org