Repeatable

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m (category)
(3 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
One common misconception about repeatability is that the original phenomenon must be repeated in order to qualify. Such examples are:
 
One common misconception about repeatability is that the original phenomenon must be repeated in order to qualify. Such examples are:
 
* We must recreate the [[Big Bang]] in order to prove it
 
* We must recreate the [[Big Bang]] in order to prove it
* We must directly observe, in one sitting, one "kind" of species [[evolve]] into another ("[[evolve|macro evolution]]")
+
* We must directly observe, in one sitting, one "kind" of species [[evolve]] into another ("[[macro vs micro evolution|macro evolution]]")
  
The repeatability is entirely viable through the individual confirming experiments, such as microwave background radiation for the Big Bang, or new predicted fossils discovered by scientists, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik Tiktaalik roseae]. If such an objection about repeatability were true, then the entire field of anthropology would be rendered superfluousness.  
+
The repeatability is entirely viable through the individual confirming experiments, such as microwave background radiation for the Big Bang, or new predicted fossils discovered by scientists, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik Tiktaalik roseae]. If such an objection about repeatability were true, then the entire field of archaeology would be rendered superfluous.  
  
 
[[Category:Epistemology]]
 
[[Category:Epistemology]]
 
[[Category:Science]]
 
[[Category:Science]]
 +
[[Category:evidence]]

Revision as of 11:19, 29 June 2011

Repeatability in science is the capacity to execute an experiment or data collection again and again. For instance, if a scientist claims to be able to achieve Cold Fusion in a styrofoam cup, given the procedures the scientist undertook, other scientists should be able to replicate the same results. If they cannot, then either the procedures given by the claimant are faulty, the experiment results were misunderstood, or it succeeded for other reasons. Without repeatability, the scientific method is incredibly ambiguous about what the conclusions to the data are.

One common misconception about repeatability is that the original phenomenon must be repeated in order to qualify. Such examples are:

  • We must recreate the Big Bang in order to prove it
  • We must directly observe, in one sitting, one "kind" of species evolve into another ("macro evolution")

The repeatability is entirely viable through the individual confirming experiments, such as microwave background radiation for the Big Bang, or new predicted fossils discovered by scientists, such as Tiktaalik roseae. If such an objection about repeatability were true, then the entire field of archaeology would be rendered superfluous.

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox