Determinism, reproducibility, and numerical analysis

> Finally, note that if your result is not reproducible, what you're doing is arguably not science; reproducibility is necessary because otherwise you can claim results from your simulation and insist that your hypothesis is correct, even though my results are different and falsify your hypothesis, simply by saying that my run of the simulation is wrong.

Not "arguably", it *cannot* be science.

Science is accurately predicting the results of your experiments, not just doing experiments and "seeing what happens" - that's called playing.

That's why whenever you see "a new experiment has proven that ...", you know either they don't know what they're doing, or they do know what they're doing and it's called propaganda/lying.

It's not Science until you do the exact same experiment and get the result you predicted. Nothing wrong with the prediction being vague, as long as it is correct as far as it goes - you can always refine it afterwards. And then do another experiment, of course!

Cheers,
Wol