Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There are three standard rejoinders to these points. The first is to argue that because the replicator is closely copying the method set out in an earlier experiment, the original description must in some way be insufficient or otherwise defective. After all, the argument goes, if someone cannot reproduce your results when following your recipe, something must be wrong with either the original method or in the findings it generated.
This is a barren defense. I have a particular cookbook that I love, and even though I follow the recipes as closely as I can, the food somehow never quite looks as good as it does in the photos. Does this mean that the recipes are deficient, perhaps even that the authors have misrepresented the quality of their food? Or could it be that there is more to great cooking than simply following a recipe? I do wish the authors would specify how many millimeters constitutes a thinly sliced onion, or the maximum torque allowed when fluffing rice, or even just the acceptable range in degrees Fahrenheit for medium heat. They dont, because they assume that I share tacit knowledge of certain culinary conventions and techniques; they also do not tell me that the onion needs to be peeled and that the chicken should be plucked free of feathers before browning. If I do not possess this tacit know-howperhaps because I am globally incompetent, or am relatively new to cooking, or even just new to cooking Middle Eastern food specificallythen naturally, my outcomes will differ from theirs.
Likewise, there is more to being a successful experimenter than merely following whats printed in a method section. Experimenters develop a sense, honed over many years, of how to use a method successfully. Much of this knowledge is implicit. Collecting meaningful neuroimaging data, for example, requires that participants remain near-motionless during scanning, and thus in my lab, we go through great lengths to encourage participants to keep still. We whine about how we will have spent a lot of money for nothing if they move, we plead with them not to sneeze or cough or wiggle their foot while in the scanner, and we deliver frequent pep talks and reminders throughout the session. These experimental events, and countless more like them, go unreported in our method section for the simple fact that they are part of the shared, tacit know-how of competent researchers in my field; we also fail to report that the experimenters wore clothes and refrained from smoking throughout the session. Someone without full possession of such know-howperhaps because he is globally incompetent, or new to science, or even just new to neuroimaging specificallycould well be expected to bungle one or more of these important, yet unstated, experimental details. And because there are many more ways to do an experiment badly than to do one well, recipe-following will commonly result in failure to replicate.
I'll give you a hand. Read the following, then look in the mirror.
Quantum Windbag is a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
Could also be a conservative!
I'll give you a hand. Read the following, then look in the mirror.
Quantum Windbag is a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
Could also be a conservative!
I never made any secret that I am a sociopath, what's your point?
I'll give you a hand. Read the following, then look in the mirror.
Quantum Windbag is a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
Could also be a conservative!
I never made any secret that I am a sociopath, what's your point?
So now that you admit what's wrong with you are you going to seek help?
