Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Space-Time Curvature and the General Theory of Relativity01:17

Space-Time Curvature and the General Theory of Relativity

2.7K
In 1905, Albert Einstein published his special theory of relativity. According to this theory, no matter in the universe can attain a speed greater than the speed of light in a vacuum, which thus serves as the speed limit of the universe.
This has been verified in many experiments. However, space and time are no longer absolute. Two observers moving relative to one another do not agree on the length of objects or the passage of time. The mechanics of objects based on Newton's laws of...
2.7K
Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision03:37

Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision

73.6K
Scientists typically make repeated measurements of a quantity to ensure the quality of their findings and to evaluate both the precision and the accuracy of their results. Measurements are said to be precise if they yield very similar results when repeated in the same manner. A measurement is considered accurate if it yields a result that is very close to the true or the accepted value. Precise values agree with each other; accurate values agree with a true value. 
73.6K
Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

10.9K
Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
10.9K
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing01:13

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

184
Hypothesis testing is a fundamental statistical tool that begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis H0 is true. During this process, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II. A Type I error refers to the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, while a Type II error involves the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5%...
184
Testing a Claim about Standard Deviation01:19

Testing a Claim about Standard Deviation

2.4K
A complete procedure to test a claim about population standard deviation or population variance is explained here.
The hypothesis testing for the claim of population standard deviation (or variance) requires the data and samples to be random and unbiased. The population distribution also must be normal. There is no specific requirement on the sample size as the estimation is based on the chi-square distribution.
As a first step, the hypothesis (null and alternative) concerning the claim about...
2.4K
The Uncertainty Principle04:08

The Uncertainty Principle

23.2K
Werner Heisenberg considered the limits of how accurately one can measure properties of an electron or other microscopic particles. He determined that there is a fundamental limit to how accurately one can measure both a particle’s position and its momentum simultaneously. The more accurate the measurement of the momentum of a particle is known, the less accurate the position at that time is known and vice versa. This is what is now called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. He...
23.2K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Non-empirical physics from a historical perspective: New pathways in history and philosophy of physics.

Studies in history and philosophy of science·2025
Same author

Meta-empirical support for eliminative reasoning.

Studies in history and philosophy of science·2021
Same author

Epistemic Justification and Methodological Luck in Inflationary Cosmology.

The British journal for the philosophy of science·2019
Same author

Nephrotoxicity from contrast media: attenuation with theophylline.

Radiology·1995

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 17, 2025

Enhanced Reproducibility and Precision of High-Throughput Quantification of Bacterial Growth Data Using a Microplate Reader
09:15

Enhanced Reproducibility and Precision of High-Throughput Quantification of Bacterial Growth Data Using a Microplate Reader

Published on: July 27, 2022

2.0K

When "replicability" is more than just "reliability": The Hubble constant controversy.

Vera Matarese1, C D McCoy2

  • 1Department of Philosophy, Social Sciences and Education, University of Perugia, Via dell'Università 1, 06123, Perugia, Italy.

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
|August 6, 2024
PubMed
Summary

Replication in science serves two epistemic functions: direct replication assesses reliability via precision, while conceptual replication assesses validity via accuracy. This framework clarifies scientific progress, as seen in the Hubble constant controversy.

Keywords:
Conceptual replicationDirect replicationHubble constantReliabilityResampling account of replicationValidity

More Related Videos

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements
10:22

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements

Published on: September 7, 2019

8.2K
Uncovering Hidden Dynamics of Natural Photonic Structures Using Holographic Imaging
05:45

Uncovering Hidden Dynamics of Natural Photonic Structures Using Holographic Imaging

Published on: March 31, 2022

2.6K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 17, 2025

Enhanced Reproducibility and Precision of High-Throughput Quantification of Bacterial Growth Data Using a Microplate Reader
09:15

Enhanced Reproducibility and Precision of High-Throughput Quantification of Bacterial Growth Data Using a Microplate Reader

Published on: July 27, 2022

2.0K
Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements
10:22

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements

Published on: September 7, 2019

8.2K
Uncovering Hidden Dynamics of Natural Photonic Structures Using Holographic Imaging
05:45

Uncovering Hidden Dynamics of Natural Photonic Structures Using Holographic Imaging

Published on: March 31, 2022

2.6K

Area of Science:

  • Philosophy of Science
  • Scientific Methodology
  • Astronomy

Background:

  • Replication is crucial for scientific progress, but its precise epistemic functions are debated.
  • Existing accounts of replication may not fully capture its diverse roles in scientific inquiry.
  • Understanding experimental error (random vs. systematic) is key to evaluating scientific findings.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To propose a novel framework for understanding the epistemic functions of scientific replication.
  • To differentiate between direct and conceptual replications based on their relationship to experimental error.
  • To illustrate this framework using the historical Hubble constant controversy in astronomy.

Main Methods:

  • Conceptual analysis of the epistemic roles of replication in science.
  • Distinction between reliability (precision, random error) and validity (accuracy, systematic error).
  • Case study analysis of the Hubble constant controversy to demonstrate the application of the proposed framework.

Main Results:

  • Direct replications primarily assess experimental reliability by measuring precision and random error.
  • Conceptual replications primarily assess experimental validity by evaluating accuracy and systematic error.
  • The Hubble constant controversy exemplifies how different types of replication address precision and accuracy concerns.

Conclusions:

  • The proposed framework provides a more nuanced understanding of replication's epistemic functions.
  • Distinguishing between reliability and validity through replication types enhances the evaluation of scientific results.
  • This approach offers valuable insights into resolving scientific controversies and establishing robust scientific knowledge.