Science Depends on Repeatable Results

The image for this post is by "howtogoto" on BigStockPhoto. It shows a labtech examining a substance in a beaker. BigStock gives one free image a month.

I decided to try publishing a post a day in 2022. I fear that my New Years Resolution committed me to a large number of late night sessions where I start typing at midnight and end publish a half-assed post at 3:00 AM.

I began 2021 with the same resolution. I actually began every day of the year thinking of topics to research. I would usually conclude after several hours of research that I didn't have anything significant to contribute to the subject at hand and decide against publishing.

Apparently, it is only when I am typing at 3:00 AM with the demand I publish before I go to sleep that I seem to be able to force myself to press the publish button.

Of course, writing in the middle of the night means that I am writing nonsensical, sleep deprived messages.

Somehow I got on the the spaminator list. I was surprised at how demoralizing being labeled a spammer can be. Here I was tossing out hours and hours of work because I didn't feel it was up to snuff ... only to find the few things I did publish getting labeled as spam.

The inclusion on the spaminator list set me to thinking about the nature of plagiarism and spam.

The demand that each post say something demonstrably original is somewhat anti-human because the things that people think really aren't that original. Repetition is a fundamental part of the human experience.

I decided to publish this post on STEMgeeks.net. The primary focus of STEMgeeks is science and technology.

Science is discipline in which thinkers form and test hypothesis with experiments. The experiments must be repeatable. An experiment that cannot be repeated is of no value.

Technology is even worse than science. Tech companies will engineer products around scientific ideas and produce millions upon millions of copies.

The wealth in modern society does not come from hyper-originality but from our ability to accurately reproduce things.

Modern technology is wonderful. I will post this message on STEMgeeks. People around the world will download accurate copies of the article. The articles are demonstrably accurate. The hash of the article you download will match the hash of the article I uploaded.

Science and technology are not somehow locked in opposition to replication. These disciples are actually built around the ability to reproduce results.

Good scientists and engineers do not spend their days fearing that they might repeat themselves. Great thinkers spend their days grinding through difficult problems. These difficult problems often involve working through the same ideas over and over again.

While forums dedicated to scientific advancement need to guard against outright plagiarism, copyright violations and identity theft, one would expect forums that are truly dedicated to the advancement of science to end up with repeated arguments.

Quality science is not driven by some sort of manic desire for originality. Quality science should be driven by a pursuit of truth. People engaged in authentic pursuit of truth are bound to repeat ideas.

Quite frankly, I believe that the pursuit of truth is more valuable than the pursuit of originality.

Seriously, think about it. Do you want to live in a country with a legal system where courts come up with original rulings in each case? Would you want to visit a doctor driven by a desire to come up with a different diagnosis with each patient. What would you think if the doctor said. "I gave the last patient a vitamin. To be original, I think I will lop off your foot?"

Good doctors do not spend their days coming up with original treatments for each patient. Good doctors study medicine, diagnose the ailments of patients and then give commonly prescribed treatments according to the diagnosis.

People engaged in quality science writing should be focused on the quality of the facts and accurately presenting scientific hypotheses than in the originality of their prose.

We do have to guard against plagiarism. IMHO, the POB approach to ownership should be sufficient. If the words in my article flow from my brain, through my hands and onto the blockchain, then that is enough originality for a STEMgeeks article.

"facts" are not unique to each writer. Scientific hypotheses are not unique to the science writer and the conclusions are not unique to the writer. Different writers will have unique presentations. So, it is the differences in presentations that we should learn to appreciate.

Anyway, it is now 3:24 AM. I think I have punished myself enough for this article and will now press the post button.

Posted with STEMGeeks