[bip] Reproducible research

[Andrew Dalke]

On Mar 9, 2009, at 10:20 AM, Leighton Pritchard wrote:
> <pedant>
> No - they're observations.  No observations are reproducible in a  
> strict
> sense.  Observations play an important role in Science, but they  
> are not
> Science.
> </pedant>

Observations alone are meaningless.

Observations when used as tests of theory are science.

Are the following science?
   - Eddington's observation of light deflection in the
      eclipse of 1919 as a test of Einstein's general relativity

   - Observation of the muon, in conflict with the particle theory of  
1936

(Can you infer my physics background here? :)

If these are not science, then what is science?

				Andrew
				dalke at dalkescientific.com