Home
AudioAsylum Trader
Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

For Sale Ads

FAQ / News / Events

 

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.

You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login


Login to access features only available to registered Asylum Inmates.
    By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username:

The Name that you picked or by default, your email.
Forgot Moniker?

 
 

Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".

Password:    

Forgot Password?

 Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:  
Your Email:  
Subject:  

Message Comments

   

Original Message

The scientific standard for validation of results obtained by experimental procedure is Replication.

Posted by bjh on September 22, 2007 at 22:27:51:

"Sometimes experimenters may make systematic errors during their experiments, unconsciously veer from the scientific method (Pathological science) for various reasons, or, in rare cases, deliberately falsify their results. Consequently, it is a common practice for other scientists to attempt to repeat the experiments in order to duplicate the results, thus further validating the hypothesis." (see link)

It seems clear that documentation in this case was lacking and hence it would not be possible to replicate the experiment based upon the published paper. This is a sad statement for the documentation of an empirical investigation published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

It would be entirely futile to argue this point as the demands of the scientific method clearly were not met and franlkly it matters little what I, you, or the editors feel about it. The scientific method makes no allowance for lowering standards regardless of whether rational debate may or may not be possible, and it certainly makes no allowance for "Trust us" assertions!





We hope our perceptions ain't slippin
But we swear to God we seen Lou Reed
Cow tippin