Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: + + +
Replication of results (view source)
Revision as of 02:07, December 16, 2010
, 02:07, December 16, 2010peer-review is by no means proof against bad science or incorrect findings
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]]