From Neuroskeptic at Discover:
In a new paper in the Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, Chris Drummond takes aim at the ‘reproducibility movement’ which has lately risen to prominence in science.
…
If we have multiple pieces of evidence for a hypothesis, but none of those pieces of evidence are reproducible, the hypothesis would have no support. Reproducibility of the primary evidence must be there first, before we can marshal the evidence to support our models. A model supported by lots of unreproducible evidence is a house built on sand.
So I agree with Drummond that reproducibility, alone, is not sufficient to make strong science (I’m not sure if anyone thinks it is), but I stand by my view that it is necessary. More.
From the bleachers: What’s the alternative to your results getting replicated? Just belonging to the science union and paying your dues is all that matters?
See also: Replication: Can new metric crack science’s credibility problem?