|
|
|
|
|
|
by dpleban
1438 days ago
|
|
|
> It has relied on the ability to make predictions based on pusblished theories, methods, laws etc This might be a semantic argument, but what you describe is replication. Imagine every scientist would say "In my experiment, I perfectly predicted this and that, oh but no one else would ever be able to run that experiment again, so just trust me, ok?" Replication/reproducibility isn't about logging every configuration, machine or particle. It's about being able to run the same method and get the same result. If that isn't the case, how do we know the predictions are correct? |
|
|
I don't know much about this topic, but isn't this kind of what's happening with for instance the Large Hadron Collider? We seem to collectively trust the results from LHC experiments, even though no one can replicate them because there is only one LHC and AFAIK no one is building another particle accelerator for similar or greater energy levels. There's no guarantee that we'll see another particle accelerator of that scale in our lifetime.
It seems to me that your point implies that LHC experiments shouldn't be considered to be science, since they cannot practically be replicated any time soon (except at the LHC itself, which somewhat defeats the purpose of replication). But I (not a physicist) find myself quite trusting of their results tbh. I'm not sure I can fully articulate why, and I'm not sure I have a good reason for it.