Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I disagree. The gold standard is if outside groups subject your findings to new experiments and reproduce the same results.


I agree with you.

"I can run your code/experiment/etc. in your population and get your results" isn't the gold standard either. "We approached it from a different way, and with a different population, and we get a consistent answer" is both harder and more compelling.


Well, there's replicating the experiment and then there's challenging the conclusion. Those are two separate ideas, and are actually fairly independent.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: