Changes

'''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.

'''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.

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]]

[[Category:Science]]