New!Stay informed with our freeemail newsletter.
advertisement
Science News
from research organizations

Scientific reproducibility does not equate to scientific truth, mathematical model finds

Date:
May 15, 2019
Source:
University of Idaho
Summary:
Reproducible scientific results are not always true and true scientific results are not always reproducible, according to a mathematical model.
Share:
advertisement

FULL STORY

Reproducible scientific results are not always true and true scientific results are not always reproducible, according to a mathematical model produced by University of Idaho researchers. Their study, which simulates the search for that scientific truth, will be published Wednesday, May 15, in the journalPLOS ONE.

Independent confirmation of scientific results -- known as reproducibility -- lends credibility to a researcher's conclusion. But researchers have found the results of many well-known science experiments cannot be reproduced, an issue referred to as a "replication crisis."

"Over the last decade, people have focused on trying to find remedies for the 'replication crisis,'" said Berna Devezer, lead author of the study and U of I associate professor of marketing in the College of Business and Economics. "But proposals for remedies are being accepted and implemented too fast without solid justifications to support them. We need a better theoretical understanding of how science operates before we can provide reliable remedies for the right problems. Our model is a framework for studying science."

Devezer and her colleagues investigated the relationship between reproducibility and the discovery of scientific truths by building a mathematical model that represents a scientific community working toward finding a scientific truth. In each simulation, the scientists are asked to identify the shape of a specific polygon.

The modeled scientific community included multiple scientist types, each with a different research strategy, such as performing highly innovative experiments or simple replication experiments. Devezer and her colleagues studied whether factors like the makeup of the community, the complexity of the polygon and the rate of reproducibility influenced how fast the community settled on the true polygon shape as the scientific consensus and the persistence of the true polygon shape as the scientific consensus.

Within the model, the rate of reproducibility did not always correlate with the probability of identifying the truth, how fast the community identified the truth and whether the community stuck with the truth once they identified it. These findings indicate reproducible results are not synonymous with finding the truth, Devezer said.

Compared to other research strategies, highly innovative research tactics resulted in a quicker discovery of the truth. According to the study, a diversity of research strategies protected against ineffective research approaches and optimized desirable aspects of the scientific process.

变量包括社区的化妆d complexity of the true polygon influenced the speed scientists discovered the truth and persistence of that truth, suggesting the validity of scientific results should not be automatically blamed on questionable research practices or problematic incentives, Devezer said. Both have been pointed to as drivers of the "replication crisis."

"We found that, within the model, some research strategies that lead to reproducible results could actually slow down the scientific process, meaning reproducibility may not always be the best -- or at least the only -- indicator of good science," said Erkan Buzbas, U of I assistant professor in the College of Science, Department of Statistical Science and a co-author on the paper. "Insisting on reproducibility as the only criterion might have undesirable consequences for scientific progress."

advertisement


Story Source:

Materialsprovided byUniversity of Idaho.注意:内容可能被编辑风格d length.


Journal Reference:

  1. Berna Devezer, Luis G. Nardin, Bert Baumgaertner, Erkan Ozge Buzbas.Scientific discovery in a model-centric framework: Reproducibility, innovation, and epistemic diversity.PLOS ONE, 2019; 14 (5): e0216125 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0216125

Cite This Page:

University of Idaho. "Scientific reproducibility does not equate to scientific truth, mathematical model finds." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 15 May 2019. /releases/2019/05/190515144008.htm>.
University of Idaho. (2019, May 15). Scientific reproducibility does not equate to scientific truth, mathematical model finds.ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 26, 2023 from www.koonmotors.com/releases/2019/05/190515144008.htm
University of Idaho. "Scientific reproducibility does not equate to scientific truth, mathematical model finds." ScienceDaily. www.koonmotors.com/releases/2019/05/190515144008.htm (accessed October 26, 2023).

Explore More
from ScienceDaily

RELATED STORIES