You seem to be very rarefied in the art of obfuscation .. Archived Message
Posted by Shyaku on May 11, 2020, 1:42 am, in reply to "You can't understand what you yourself are saying, S? That getting a clear grasp of what's really"
I cannot see what productive purpose it serves other than seeming to be beautiful from a distance. If someone gets a result that is not reproducible despite 50x the effort spread over ten additional labs, then in that scenario for yet ten more, or 20 more, labs to divert their own productive efforts to then keep trying to reproduce the original result - where is the wishful thinking? They are all at liberty to pursue their own ideas, and to draw their own conclusions about the failed work, are they not? So what is the actual point of what you are saying? That something unverifiable may be true? Usually things that are unverifiable could be true with some finite probability. But things that are falsifiable are not. If you get a result when you use a specific reagent, then get a false outcome when you use an equivalent reagent, the difference is due to the reagent. Hope its clear. Nobody is saying, necessarily, that the original result is deliberate fraud. But it does make the result falsifiable, and the place to look is the reagent not the biological sample.
|
|