[e2e] was double blind, now reproduceable results

[Bob Braden]

  *> 
  *>  >>Jon - there are a large class of experimental results that can never be 
  *>  >>reproduced again (measurements of network at a point in time).
  *> 
  *> well this doesnt argue that we should publish part of the experiment,
  *> but even more strongly then that a unique observation should be
  *> captured more completely.
  *> 
  *>  >>In psychology, the drive to make all results reproducible produced 
  *>  >>Behaviorism - the idea that everything could be reduced to a model that 
  *>  >>could be carried out in a lab.   The Ecological movement in psychology made 
  *>  >>the compelling point that the dominant set of real psychological phenomena 
  *>  >>cannot be reduced to lab conditions.

David,

I believe your argument is just plain wrong.

It is true (but not relevant) that humans have a non-determinism that
makes good science in psychology hard. Nevertheless, I was married to a
social psychologist who got her degree under Festinger at Stanford; she
learned how to do solid experimental, reproducible, science even with
human beings.

Your argument would suggest that because of quantum theory and in
particular the Heisenberg Principle, physicists cannot do reproducible
research.  Nonsense.

I agree with Jon.  When our published results are not reproducible, we
are not doing good computer science.

Bob Braden

  *>  >>
  *>  >>Systems research is an area much more like psychology than physics (and 
  *>  >>physics itself is a bit too reductionistic to be safe).
  *>  >>
  *>  >>Science is not (much as some would wish) the formulaic application of some 
  *>  >>abstract thing called The Scientific Method.   Rules can only take you so 
  *>  >>far before you have to look at some principles underlying the rules, only 
  *>  >>to realize that the rules are getting in the way of being effective.
  *>  
  *> 
  *>  cheers
  *> 
  *>    jon
  *>