Replication and its low allure - can it change?

Andrew Gelman has a good post up called “confirmation, on the other hand, is not sexy”. 

And, yes, sure. It isn’t as sexy as the new and counterintuitive stuff. Or something like a very young person discovering some cheapo cure for some horrid disease (which, of course, is opposed by big pharma – no I do not believe that either). And, as Andrew outlines (and as lots of worn scientists know), the sexy stuff does not necessarily hold up.

Replication is needed.  Science can be sexy, but it must be true, and you get to the true by replication (I keep having metaphors of the hot young thing of whatever desired gender, and the stalwart spouse, who may no longer be so hot, but at least you get laid regularly…)

Or, like this The Firm Clip.

 

Also reminds me about an exchange between Kuhn and Popper (or Sir Karl as Kuhn insisted on calling him), where Kuhn stressed the importance of normal science, and Sir Karl is pushing the need for being wild and falsifying… Hey, being wild is cool Sir Karl, but normal science eventually builds the rockets.

 

Now, go read Andrew