Abstract
AbstractReplicability is widely regarded as one of the defining features of science and its pursuit is one of the main postulates of meta-research, a discipline emerging in response to the replicability crisis. At the same time, replicability is typically treated with caution by philosophers of science. In this paper, we reassess the value of replicability from an epistemic perspective. We defend the orthodox view, according to which replications are always epistemically useful, against the more prudent view that claims that it is useful in very limited circumstances. Additionally, we argue that we can learn more about the original experiment and the limits of the discovered effect from replications at different levels. We hold that replicability is a crucial feature of experimental results and scientists should continue to strive to secure it.
Funder
Narodowe Centrum Nauki
H2020 European Research Council
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
History and Philosophy of Science,Multidisciplinary
Reference62 articles.
1. Anderson, C. J., Bahník, Š, Barnett-Cowan, M., Bosco, F. A., Chandler, J., Chartier, C. R., Cheung, F., Christopherson, C. D., Cordes, A., Cremata, E. J., & Della, P. N. (2016). Response to comment on ‘estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.’ Science, 351(March), 1037–1037. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad9163
2. Andreoletti, M., & Teira, D. (2016). Statistical evidence and the reliability of medical research. In Miriam Solomon, Jeremy R. Simon & Harold Kincaid (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Medicine (pp. 218–227). Routledge.
3. Anvari, F., & Lakens, D. (2018). The replicability crisis and public trust in psychological science. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, 3(3), 266–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2019.1684822
4. Barba, L. A. (2018). Terminologies for reproducible research. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03311.
5. Berger, V. W., & Exner, D. V. (1999). Detecting selection bias in randomized clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 20(4), 319–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0197-2456(99)00014-8
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献