Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Replace peer review with “peer replication” (2021)

blog.everydayscientist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 351 posts

Re: Replace peer review with “peer replication” (2021)

#341

Post by Qwertious »

memefrog wrote: post #290
tsimionescu wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick trip around audiophile companies should quickly disabuse you of the notion that high sales implies any kind of worth to a product. There are several companies making lots of money on selling gold HDMI, ethernet etc cables "to improve sound quality", and plenty of rubes buying them and "hearing the difference".

Real Hi-Fi companies like Sennheiser and Bose make far more money than people selling gold HDMI cables. And they've been making much more money for decades and will continue to make money for decades. Grifters don't win in the long-term.

>Grifters don't win in the long-term.

Plenty of religions suggest otherwise.

(Dear reader: I'm not referring to your religion - I'm referring to the other religions.)

Re: Replace peer review with “peer replication” (2021)

#342

Post by Knee_Pain »

p1esk wrote: post #339
Knee_Pain wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you want to be known for original results, which cannot be confirmed to be true? So what kind of results are they? Also your mentality is exactly part of the problem: you arrogantly believe that replication work is beneath you and that originality is all that matters.

So you want to be known for original results, which cannot be confirmed to be true? My results can be confirmed by anyone who wishes to do so, because I always publish my code. you arrogantly believe that replication work is beneath you I’ve done plenty of replication work when it was needed for my research. Replicating other people’s work however is not my responsibility and it is not usually required to perform ori…

>Replicating other people’s work however is not my responsibility

so you want to do science.... which requires there to be replication.... but somehow it's not your responsibility to replicate anything? last I checked the scientific method has to be followed through all the steps to be valid, not just the ones that you personally like

Re: Replace peer review with “peer replication” (2021)

#343

Post by memefrog »

Qwertious wrote: post #341
memefrog wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real Hi-Fi companies like Sennheiser and Bose make far more money than people selling gold HDMI cables. And they've been making much more money for decades and will continue to make money for decades. Grifters don't win in the long-term.

>Grifters don't win in the long-term. Plenty of religions suggest otherwise. (Dear reader: I'm not referring to your religion - I'm referring to the other religions.)

Wow so edgy and cool. Are you a teenager?

Re: Replace peer review with “peer replication” (2021)

#344

Post by p1esk »

Knee_Pain wrote: post #342
p1esk wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you want to be known for original results, which cannot be confirmed to be true? My results can be confirmed by anyone who wishes to do so, because I always publish my code. you arrogantly believe that replication work is beneath you I’ve done plenty of replication work when it was needed for my research. Replicating other people’s work however is not my responsibility and it is not usually required to perform ori…

>Replicating other people’s work however is not my responsibility so you want to do science.... which requires there to be replication.... but somehow it's not your responsibility to replicate anything? last I checked the scientific method has to be followed through all the steps to be valid, not just the ones that you personally like

I usually replicate someone's results for one of the two reasons:

1. I don't trust the results

2. I want to understand their work in sufficient detail

Usually these reasons apply when I'm building directly on top of someone's work. This is not always the case. Often my research is based on ideas which could be tested by generating my own results. As long as I can replicate my own results I don't see a problem.

Re: Replace peer review with “peer replication” (2021)

#345

Post by Knee_Pain »

p1esk wrote: post #344
Knee_Pain wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Replicating other people’s work however is not my responsibility so you want to do science.... which requires there to be replication.... but somehow it's not your responsibility to replicate anything? last I checked the scientific method has to be followed through all the steps to be valid, not just the ones that you personally like

I usually replicate someone's results for one of the two reasons: 1. I don't trust the results 2. I want to understand their work in sufficient detail Usually these reasons apply when I'm building directly on top of someone's work. This is not always the case. Often my research is based on ideas which could be tested by generating my own results. As long as I can replicate my own results I don't see a problem.

>As long as I can replicate my own results I don't see a problem.

replicating your own results is not science though, it's anectodes

Re: Replace peer review with “peer replication” (2021)

#346

Post by gxt »

So why haven't "science modules" been developed yet? I see a library sized piece of equipment to physically perform the lab work that can be configured akin to CNC machining. Papers would then be submitted with the module program and be easily replicated by other labs.

Re: Replace peer review with “peer replication” (2021)

#347

Post by brightball »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #334
brightball wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's simply no valid argument to warrant skepticism of either, given the ease of locating evidence that both do I wasn’t proving either, just validating skepticism

you weren't able to do so, since "X is ridiculous to deny" is orthogonal to "there exist people who deny X" , and the latter is the tangent deflected to. Like I said, anyone actually spending ten seconds researching the topic in good faith would discover that both round-earth denialists and climate-change denialists exist in real life, no matter how ridiculous their beliefs anyhow, back on topic: the proposed alterna…

I explained plain as day how it’s easy to be skeptical of anything that can’t be verified quickly and then explained the difference.

There’s not a lot left to say if you’re going to ignore that.

Re: Replace peer review with “peer replication” (2021)

#348

Post by tines »

dongping wrote: post #25
tines wrote: post #18

"Replace peer code review with 'peer code testing.'" Probably not gonna catch on.

"peer code testing" is already the job of the CI server. As it is nothing new, it probably is not going to catch on.

This proves my point, it's so unpopular that it won't happen unless it's automated.
Post reply on HN