THE RANT ROOM

[EMJunkie]

Again, you have no idea, what so ever about Science!

Reproducibility of Scientific Results

The terms "reproducibility crisis" and "replication crisis" gained currency in conversation and in print over the last decade (e.g., Pashler & Wagenmakers 2012), as disappointing results emerged from large scale reproducibility projects in various medical, life and behavioural sciences (e.g., Open Science Collaboration, OSC 2015). In 2016, a poll conducted by the journal Nature reported that more than half (52%) of scientists surveyed believed science was facing a "replication crisis" (Baker 2016). More recently, some authors have moved to more positive terms for describing this episode in science; for example, Vazire (2018) refers instead to a "credibility revolution" highlighting the improved methods and open science practices it has motivated.

The crisis often refers collectively to at least the following things:

the virtual absence of replication studies in the published literature in many scientific fields (e.g., Makel, Plucker, & Hegarty 2012),
widespread failure to reproduce results of published studies in large systematic replication projects (e.g., OSC 2015; Begley & Ellis 2012),
evidence of publication bias (Fanelli 2010a),
a high prevalence of "questionable research practices", which inflate the rate of false positives in the literature (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn 2011; John, Loewenstein, & Prelec 2012; Agnoli et al. 2017; Fraser et al. 2018), and
the documented lack of transparency and completeness in the reporting of methods, data and analysis in scientific publication (Bakker & Wicherts 2011; Nuijten et al. 2016).
The associated open science reform movement aims to rectify conditions that led to the crisis. This is done by promoting activities such as data sharing and public pre-registration of studies, and by advocating stricter editorial policies around statistical reporting including publishing replication studies and statistically non-significant results.

This review consists of four distinct parts. First, we look at the term "reproducibility" and related terms like "repeatability" and "replication", presenting some definitions and conceptual discussion about the epistemic function of different types of replication studies. Second, we describe the meta-science research that has established and characterised the reproducibility crisis, including large scale replication projects and surveys of questionable research practices in various scientific communities. Third, we look at attempts to address epistemological questions about the limitations of replication, and what value it holds for scientific inquiry and the accumulation of knowledge. The fourth and final part describes some of the many initiatives the open science reform movement has proposed (and in many cases implemented) to improve reproducibility in science. In addition, we reflect there on the values and norms which those reforms embody, noting their relevance to the debate about the role of values in the philosophy of science.

What constitutes proof? Do you know yet? What is consistent across my effort? Reproducibility of Scientific Results, yes we are learning something aren't we!

400 years of combined knowledge and here I am teaching you the absolute basics of Science!

Best wishes, stay safe and well in these Dire Times,
   Chris Sykes

[WhatIsIt]

Again, you have no idea, what so ever about Science!











What constitutes proof? Do you know yet? What is consistent across my effort? Reproducibility of Scientific Results, yes we are learning something aren't we!

400 years of combined knowledge and here I am teaching you the absolute basics of Science!

Best wishes, stay safe and well in these Dire Times,
   Chris Sykes

People here are not interested in your science,
or your brain capability!

They are interested for you to SHOW them how to
recreate your own work to get the gain you claim.

If you can not show that, nothing of your speech and talk
does NOT MATTER!

[NickZ]

   What is the point and purpose of letting EMJ back?  Like bringing a snake into your house, after it has already bitten you once.
   Is this the kind of publicity the Stephan wants to see on his forum??? What is the point here,  to make money from BS.
   Years of failures, and not a single FE device. Not one, including what EMJ has been wasting our time with.
    I was hoping that EMJ was not allowed to waste and more of our time, with more insults and BS, while showing NOTHING that works.   Something is not right here...  WHY???

   NickZ

[ramset]

Typically Suppression has an agenda


Why are you not open sourcing ?
I have heard for years that you are begged
By members at your forum


You never explain just " I have my reasons "


Makes people think you hunt for an investor
Or try to grow your forum


And have absolutely no concerns whatsoever
About the damage and death happening to our planet !


Your refusal to allow captain loz to take a simple temperature
Measurement is truly beyond weird


Or run lux test?


Yes we know one thing is continuous through your years
No concern at all for the consequences to our planet
And no measurements allowed!


Self evident !! And you write about science??


Here no other claims matter !!
This is your cornerstone on which all is built !!
Solid state COP 2 claim


And you will not allow any further super simple measurements !!
That jumps out as a very big flag!!


Something really stinks
Why no further comments or even endorsements
From Captain loz himself??
And seems his you tube channel has nice comments removed?


We all know you don't do nice .. you would rather libel and risk lawsuits than do nice!




If you will allow Captain loz to do a more scientific demonstration ?
I know all reading here  Will beg the topic be reopened !!


or I will
Personally reboot captain loz "verified " COP 2 build everyday!!!
——///—-////—-/////
No reems of data/math etc
There is a build here ( to my knowledge the only replication
On the planet ?


Please stop playing God with our planet
The consequences are horrific !


In your children's lifetime they will see changes that will
Risk our planets very existence


The ten years you say you have had this ( and forbidden open sourcing )
Will have "dire times " for your children and mine!!
And all others here!!

[NickZ]

   Ramset:   Do you realize how many times that you have said the same thing. Like a broken record.
   Don't you see that what you are saying makes no difference. Maybe you just want to say the same thing again, and again, and again, and again, and again. Do you really think that you are helping us here, don't you realize that guys like EMJ are just here to scam us. Don't just play his game...or you will become just like him.  It was peaceful here, for a day or two... we could almost get back to work. But, no.