I agree.
It would be helpful if we reserved the term 'replicate' for procedure
(duplicating the procedures of earlier research)
and reserved 'confirm' for the _outcome_ of replication -- achieving or not
achieving the same results.
At 1:12 PM -0500 10/24/99, Al Cone wrote:
Paul,
Methinks this is
Sounds like a distinction between "a failure to replicate" and "a failed
replication".
At 10:56 AM -0400 10/23/99, Kenneth M. Steele wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20:34:49 -0500 Al Cone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In science we build by replicating (with extensions) on the method side in
order to
estown College [EMAIL PROTECTED]
North Dakota 701.252.3467 X 2604
http://www.jc.edu/users/faculty/cone
-Original Message-
From: Paul Brandon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 1999 12:15 PM
To: TIPS
Subject: Re: RE: the failure to replicate
Sounds like a dis
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 1999 4:53 PM
To: TIPS
Subject: Re: the failure to replicate
--
From: Michael Sylvester [EMAIL PROTECTED]
what can be the various explanations why some studies have not
been
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20:34:49 -0500 Al Cone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In science we build by replicating (with extensions) on the method side in
order to confirm or disconfirm the earlier findings of others. To say that
someone "failed to replicate" means that researcher number two didn't
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 17:53:08 -0400 (EDT) Stephen Black
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A possible new example is the recent paper by Maurer et al (1999).
They reported the startling finding that as little as one hour of
patterned visual stimulation after the birth of a baby with cataracts
--
From: Stephen Black [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TIPS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: the failure to replicate
Date: Fri, Oct 22, 1999, 5:53 PM
One reason I haven't seen anyone advance is that a study may not
replicate because it's not replicable. Because of the pressure to
report
College [EMAIL PROTECTED]
North Dakota 701.252.3467 X 2604
http://www.jc.edu/users/faculty/cone
-Original Message-
From: Kenneth M. Steele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 1999 9:56 AM
To: TIPS
Subject: Re: RE: the failure to replicate
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 20
At 8:48 AM -0400 10/22/99, Michael Sylvester wrote:
what can be the various explanations why some studies have not
been replicated, or attempts at replication were made with inconsistent
results?
does the failure to replicate an indication of lack of reliability and
validity ?
Can there be
At 09:52 AM 10/22/99 -0500, Paul Brandon wrote:
Rather than talk about reliability and validity (yes, both would be
involved), I'd rather talk about the multiple determination of human
behavior:
in this case the stimulus control exerted by the subject matter under
investigation competing with the
At 3:47 PM -0400 10/22/99, dawn blasko wrote:
At 09:52 AM 10/22/99 -0500, Paul Brandon wrote:
Rather than talk about reliability and validity (yes, both would be
involved), I'd rather talk about the multiple determination of human
behavior:
in this case the stimulus control exerted by the subject
--
From: Michael Sylvester [EMAIL PROTECTED]
what can be the various explanations why some studies have not
been replicated, or attempts at replication were made with inconsistent
results?
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, John Serafin wrote:
When two or more studies show different
12 matches
Mail list logo
