this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
207 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37706 readers
313 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 73 points 1 year ago (2 children)

As always, this is why peer-review is taken in such high regard. Replicate, replicate, replicate.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago

Well, just to push back a little on any impression some might get from this episode of the health of science (all IMO of course)

Most things aren't subjected to replication attempts like this, largely because I think people have a decent amount of self-interest in getting on top of this material as early as possible if the claims are real, and, the manufacturing of the material is relatively trivial. In science in general, game changing technologies or techniques can get replication attention like this, but overall a lot of "discoveries or findings" just aren't challenged as there is no real incentive to do so as a researcher, to the point that often you'll get pushback if you try to publish a failed replication study.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

And, lots of replications of an experiment mean teams are more likely to run into different problems at different times and solve them in parallel. It shakes the bugs out faster.