On 2/21/07, Tracy R Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
> We would be better off if they published the raw data without comment.
Would you really have sifted through all of that data and done a similar
analysis for yourself? I know I wouldn't. And would you have kept the
results to yourself and given us the raw data without comment as well? I
mean, someone has to comment right?
How about raw data *with* comment? Raw data is good for independent
verification, but unlike program source code not all of us are capable
of compiling it. So commentary is good, too. There's a blogging
about this topic:
Executable articles
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003999.html
"Traditional scientific and technical journals require authors to
specify their materials, methods and analytic techniques precisely
enough to permit replication, because replicability is the foundation
of the scientific method and the engine of technological progress. Now
that the scientific and technical literature has become a networked
digital achive, we can do better. We can expect articles to include an
executable -- and readable and modifiable -- procedure for turning
published data into the numbers, tables and graphs that play a role in
their argument."
-todd
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
