Ken,
My reference is McGuigan's text on Experimental Psychology, Editions 2
through 7. He makes a big point of this distinction and cites references for
his distinction. Taken with his other excellent treatment of the logic of
science, I'm inclined to go along with him.
Al
Al L. Cone
Jamestown 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 20:34:49 -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
> duplicate the procedures of researcher number two. It says nothing about
the
> results. Perhaps I'm being old fashioned in insisting upon this
traditional
> distinction.
>
> Al
>
Al:
Would you provide a reference for that distinction. I have had
someone else tell me the opposite, that replication refers to
results and not method.
(I have tried to take the middle ground and state what is being
replicated..method or results or both.)
Ken
----------------------
Kenneth M. Steele [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC 28608
USA
