> We all know this from software development: it’s a lot easier to say “couldn’t reproduce” about a genuine bug than it is to track down the precise context in which the bug actually manifests.
If a study claims to prove something, it should be repeatedly provable or it's a) fraud or b) not proven solidly enough.
I think replication is a key component of a functional research.
If a study claims to prove something, it should be repeatedly provable or it's a) fraud or b) not proven solidly enough.
I think replication is a key component of a functional research.