Re: Evolutionist withholds evidence on Haldane's Dilemma
- From: Tim Tyler <seemysig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 01:23:21 -0400 (EDT)
Anon. wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
Anon. wrote:
Tim Tyler wrote:
Josh Hayes wrote:
Walter ReMine <science@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Nunney is withholding key evidence. [...]
No, quicker than having the second paper refereed and published. DoNo, if you get different results, the correct procedure would to thenI don't think I agree that Nunney is "withholding key evidence" -- in his
paper he says how he constructed his model, and what his results were. You
are free to construct a model according to what he says in the paper, and
if you do, one of two things will happen:
1) You'll get the same results as Nunney did [...]
2) You'll get different results, in which case you can write your OWN paper
and publish it.
That sort of stuff is a big waste of everyone's time.
Then you need a third review paper to decide which
researcher is right.
email the other researcher, and explain that you've got different
results, and start a dialogue about why. [...]
This will be a lot quicker, and more satisfying when one
of you finds the error.
Quicker than if the source code was published originally?
keep up, Bond!
So: slower than if the source code was published originally -
which was the point of my comment.
No: forcing others to recreate your program hinders fellow
researchers and the prospective audience alike.
I would disagree for two reasons. Firstly, it's often easier to write
your own code than try to understand someone else's.
If someone has supplied code, people can still write their
own code - if they want.
Secondly, by having to write your own code, you get to understand the
model much better. I think that's a help, not a hindrance.
If someone has supplied code, people can still write their
own code - *if* they want.
It seems that your point is that *sometimes* publishing
code makes little difference to *some* other researchers.
Granted - but what if the original code has a bug?
If the source is not published, it will most likely
never be found.
The prospective audience doesn't matter: if they need the code to understand
what was done-, then the paper should be re-written.
The source lets people try 'what if' experiments on the
researcher's model. Sometimes it contains
dynamic content that is hard to convey in a
static form.
Not so. Or at least I've never come across that sentiment in biology orThere can be legal problems with software licences: if one uses
propriety code, then it may not be possible to release it.
In which case you will be unable to release your code -
and the results of your simulation will most likely be
treated less seriously.
statistics (the two academic worlds in which I move).
Well, you have now. Releasing code under liberal licenses
improves researchers' reputations by showing community
spirit - and it can help people to understand, recreate
and build on the work.
My own feeling is that it's better if the source code is
made available, but it shouldn't be necessary, and
there may well be good reasons why it can't be released.
So I wouldn't want to insist on it.
I wouldn't want to insist on it either. Releasing code
/does/ take some effort. It is obviously up to the researcher.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@xxxxxxxxxxx Remove lock to reply.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Evolutionist withholds evidence on Haldane's Dilemma
- Next by Date: Re: Internal organs homologous across phyla?
- Previous by thread: Re: Evolutionist withholds evidence on Haldane's Dilemma
- Next by thread: Re: Evolutionist withholds evidence on Haldane's Dilemma
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
