Raul

Thanks for the links to the articles that discuss the scope of the problem of 
no one being motivated or funded to carry out replication experiments.

Jose

Thanks for the cartoon—I am way off in right field with the mathematician.

The results of a single study do not establish scientific facts—Established 
theories are well tested and supported by interlocking evidence from a wide 
variety of sources.

I am concerned by the climate change deniers who inherit their methods from 
religious fundamentalists who deny evolution.

Donna Y
dy...@sympatico.ca


> On Mar 6, 2018, at 6:59 PM, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I have heard a variety of disagreements, both with that premise, and
> with attempts at experiments.
> 
> (Including, since you brought up climate change, an attempt (by a
> reputable MIT graduate) to reproduce Hans Hug's data (funding for lab
> costs was there, and interns to do the legwork were available, but
> because there was a possibility that experimental results could
> conflict with current climate change models, lab access was denied).
> See http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/hug-barrett.htm and
> http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm for writeups on what he was
> trying to reproduce.)
> 
> Anyways, yeah, it's easy to find people to disagree with almost anything.
> 
> Nevertheless, there's actually been quite a bit of notice attracted to
> this issue:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
> 
> https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970
> 
> So I guess I don't feel I need to place a lot of stock in people who
> simply "disagree". Much better to show the relevant work, in my
> opinion. (And, in some cases, the necessary work has been done. So
> it's not like I'm asking for the impossible.)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- 
> Raul
> 
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
> <jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <  One weakness of the academic publishing system has been that it never
>> cared much about reproducible scientific results. Hopefully that
>> 
>> I suspect some scientists (or "scientists" depending on one's point of
>> view), for example, those working on Climate Change (Global Warming) and
>> related matters, might disagree with the premise.
>> 
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:55 PM, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> That's an interesting question...
>>> 
>>> One weakness of the academic publishing system has been that it never
>>> cared much about reproducible scientific results. Hopefully that
>>> segment of academia can muster some way of supporting efforts to
>>> support / refute such work. This will be difficult because of
>>> communication issues - it's all too easy to refute something different
>>> from the original. But, also, because of human social issues - people
>>> do not like dealing with failures.
>>> 
>>> But, also, not everything is science.
>>> 
>>> So I expect things to fragment somewhat - there's the political
>>> patronage side of things, the engineering practicality side of things,
>>> the scientific reproducibility and extension work side of things,
>>> there's the artistic merit side of things, there's the historical
>>> perspectives side of things, there's the health benefit side of
>>> things, there's the accounting verification side of things, and so
>>> on...
>>> 
>>> People who can tie into widespread support will tend to do well
>>> regardless (think: football, for example). Others... well, I think
>>> it's going to depend somewhat on the discipline.
>>> 
>>> I don't think the peer review system is going to just go away, but I
>>> think it's going to be seeing some different competition...
>>> 
>>> Working code (github contributions, perhaps) might be one example of
>>> this. But computerized platforms tend to come and go far more quickly
>>> than the printed page.
>>> 
>>> Mostly, I guess... anything involving people tends to need concerted
>>> effort to deal with.
>>> 
>>> This was probably not a useful answer.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Raul
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Ian Clark <earthspo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I've given up writing for Vector. (That's a terrible thing to say for
>>>> someone still loosely attached to the Vector committee.)
>>>> 
>>>> Why write a letter on vellum with a quill pen when you can pick up the
>>>> phone?
>>>> 
>>>> Of course, if I still had an academic reputation to defend, funding
>>> sources
>>>> to keep sweet, administrators to browbeat, pretty students to wow, I'd
>>>> think differently. My shelf full of journals would be like the diploma on
>>>> the wall. But the old systems are withering away.
>>>> 
>>>> Yet academics continue to need accreditation, good peer-reviews,
>>>> publications for their CV (in case they get hounded out of their school).
>>>> What's to replace the old systems? Facebook Likes?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:00 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming <
>>>> programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I asked for feedback on choosing one of 2 topics but received no reply.
>>>>> 
>>>>>      From: Cliff Reiter <reit...@lafayette.edu>
>>>>> To: programm...@jsoftware.com
>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 10:54 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] RV: JoJ 2018
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear J forum,
>>>>> Writing for the Journal of J or Vector is different from writing for the
>>>>> Jforums or Wiki. All those venues are a valuable resource for us who
>>>>> work with J. I encourage us to supply all those forums with material. I
>>>>> submitted a paper to Vector a few months ago:
>>>>> http://archive.vector.org.uk/art10501760
>>>>> and I noted that they too didn't have an issue in 2017.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I plan to submit an article to JoJ in a month or so. I would rather not
>>>>> be the only article in an issue. Anyone else game to submit notes/papers
>>>>> to the journals most relevant to J? I would love to see our journals
>>>>> have the some of the awesome energy that the forums have!
>>>>> Best, Cliff
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 1/15/2018 7:25 AM, mikel paternain wrote:
>>>>>> Hi everybody
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We have not received any contributions to publish in 2017.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> JoJ was born to collect works on J.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Send contributions to i...@journalofj.com<http://
>>>>> webmail.journalofj.com/imp/message.php?mailbox=INBOX.Enviados&index=17#
>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks in advance
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> JoJ
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ----------
>>>>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/
>>> forums.htm
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>>>> 
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to