Originally posted by twhitehead
The conclusions should not be taken as fact until the experiment has been reproduced.
Even that is too simplistic because it depends on the credibility that the conclusion of the first experiment could be wrong. If there is no credibility that the conclusion of the first experiment could be wrong, then it is scientific fact without reproducibility.
An example of that is the first successful experiment in powered aircraft with the (trivial) conclusion that it is possible to fly with powered aircraft; (not that scientists generally said it was impossible before that or at least not that I am aware of) that was rightly considered scientific fact before it was sequentially reproduced as it was rightly not considered creditable from the first trivial observation (of actual flight) that that conclusion could be wrong.
In my book I am writing to be published, I will explain the true essence of science and explain all the common myths of what science is.
I will assert that the true essence of science isn't about reproducibility nor about producing falsifiable theories nor testable theories because, although each one of those things definitely helps and make it much more likely to be valid science, what the true essence of science is nothing more than totally rationally producing theories i.e. base the theories PURELY on the evidence and flawless logic (or just flawless logic in the case of maths theorem) and nothing else (such as flawed logic or emotions or baseless superstition).
incidentally, I really don't like the way wiki explains reproducibility;
"..Reproducibility is the ability of an entire analysis of an experiment or study to be duplicated, ..."
What if that analyses uses illogic? It still can be duplicated! Just not rationally.
ANY "entire analysis of an experiment" can be duplicated, no matter HOW stupid or illogical it is!
No, reproducibility is not the ability of an "entire analysis of an experiment" to be duplicated but rather the ability of the "experiment and the observed result" to be duplicated. Perhaps someone here should correct the edit of that?