Quote:
Originally Posted by lastcardcharlie
But science would still be possible if tests weren't repeatable?
I'm fairly certain that if when we did certain things random stuff just happened, science would be the least of our worries. When I brush my teeth (experiment), my teeth get cleaner (result).
Unless, you are getting at something different, I am confused. Are you trying to ask something about validating prior research through repeating it? Sometimes we do that, and sometimes we just have independent observers of the same thing because we can't actually do an experiment (or repeat it) for practical matters.
We can't do experiments on the stars, the sun and the planets, but we still have science. We look at them and a bunch of people take measurements, and then a while later a different (or sometimes the same) people take measurements to see if the first measurements still make sense or to see if something new and unexpected has happened (such as someone screwed up). Sometimes we look at similar things (not exactly the same experiment), and sometimes we do exactly the same experiment.
The whole idea that experiments have to be repeatable is a guideline. It is to keep out the goofy people who talk about how their uncle Carl said he saw a ghost, or other highly personal (inaccessible to the rest of us) nature. Unless the rest of us can see it, it doesn't belong in science.