On Wed, February 21, 2007 11:00 am, Todd Walton wrote: > 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: >
And that is also true of source code. Raw data is essential. Great scientists like Linus Pauling occasionally take the data from some one else's paper, show how it was misinterpreted, reinterpret it, and come to an embarrasingly different conclusion. Also, in medicine and chemistry (my tow best known research areas, and I'm an amateur), a researcher frequently rolls up data from several different studies to find interesting new things w/o doing an actual experiment. Yea data! -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
