Sounds like a distinction between "a failure to replicate" and "a failed
replication".
At 10:56 AM -0400 10/23/99, Kenneth M. Steele wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20:34:49 -0500 Al Cone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> In science we build by replicating (with extensions) on the method side in
>> order to confirm or disconfirm the earlier findings of others. To say that
>> someone "failed to replicate" means that researcher number two didn't
>> duplicate the procedures of researcher number two. It says nothing about the
>> results. Perhaps I'm being old fashioned in insisting upon this traditional
>> distinction.
>>
>> Al
>>
>
>Al:
>
>Would you provide a reference for that distinction. I have had
>someone else tell me the opposite, that replication refers to
>results and not method.
>
>(I have tried to take the middle ground and state what is being
>replicated..method or results or both.)
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
