Considerable confusion seems to exist around the concept of
reproducibility. A phenomenon must be easily reproduced in order to be
studied by science in general. Difficult to reproduce phenomenon are
frequently studied by "experts" in an effort to discover the variables
preventing easy reproducibility. Easy reproducibility is not required to
believe a phenomenon is real. Acceptance is a psychological event that
is characteristic of the individual. Some people require some phenomenon
to be shown to work in an applied device before they will accept their
existence, while other people will accept what they see happen once. In
general, most scientists base their belief on who does the experiment,
how well described the results are, and where it is published. The
phenomenon does not have to be easily reproduced by anyone who tries to
make it work. This criteria is only reserved for cold fusion and similar
phenomenon.
Ed
leaking pen wrote:
That an experiment is reproducible is the cornerstone of the
scientific method. What, precisely, is your issue with the statement?
As has been stated before, that is the difference between scientist
and inventor. For an inventor, getting it to work now and again is
enough. for a scientist, it must be reproducible under the same
conditions.
On 5/29/07, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have never seen such a dense collection of nonsense about cold
fusion or science in general:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/a1045883
See, for example:
"Does a phenomenon have to be totally or partially reproducible to be
real? As far as science is concerned, the answer is 'totally'.
Reproducible phenomena imply reproducible and well-understood
conditions, which then gives the theorists something to get their
teeth into."
What an incredible thing to say!
- Jed
