[bip] Reproducible research

[Andrew Dalke]

On Mar 9, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Leighton Pritchard wrote:
>> Observations when used as tests of theory are science.

> For example, I observe two mugs on my desk, but that is not science.
> Assuming I don't want to do science with coffee mugs right now, of  
> course ;)

As you say, we agree. But I'll point out that if an archeologist
were to find your room some long time in the future (perhaps it
was buried by a volcano there in the UK?) then observing two
mugs on your desk might be science.

> They're science in the same sense that a brick is a house.

I think that if you stress this too much you end up with the
Chinese room paradox.

This side thread got kicked off because I protested that
reproducibility is a requirement for doing science. I just
read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility which points
out:

    Reproducibility is different from repeatability, which
    measures the success rate in successive experiments,
    possibly conducted by the same experimenters.
    Reproducibility relates to the agreement of test
    results with different operators, test apparatus, and
    laboratory locations. It is often reported as a
    standard deviation.

Having access to the original source code and run-time
environment, under this definition, emphasizes the goal
of repeatability, not reproducibility.


				Andrew
				dalke at dalkescientific.com