Something doesn't add up:<p>"
...attempted to reproduce the 74 results. Statistically significant evidence for repeatability was found for 43 papers, meaning that the results were replicable under identical conditions; and significant evidence for reproducibility or robustness was found in 22 papers, meaning the results were replicable by different scientists under similar conditions. In two cases, the automation made serendipitous discoveries.<p>While only 22 out of 74 papers were found to be reproducible in this experiment,... "<p>Shouldn't that be 9 were NOT reproducible since 65 we're reproducible?<p>Or does "results were replicable" mean something other than reproducible?
Their sample size was only 74 papers from one field of study.<p>It's easy to get onto the "science isn't working" bandwagon, but how about some more convincing evidence to prove it's happening as widespread as the claims they're making are.<p>You know... maybe treating it a bit more scientifically to prove your point.
Balaji Srinivasan recently discussed the importance of scientific reproducibility on The Knowledge Project: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlY8HICFiRs" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlY8HICFiRs</a>