Eidotrope at OutDPS: We want the theorycrafting we encounter to be correct, but is that all we should want? This post explores another virtue of good theorycrafting, trustworthiness.
It is hard to put faith in a result, no matter how precise or appealing, if we have no idea how a person arrived at it. We want theorycrafters to describe their methods so that we can have some confidence that their results are reasonably-obtained rather than the product of chance or mistake. Real-world scientists have the same expectation in their fields and, quite understandably, have put a lot of time into articulating what things make a result trustworthy. They use the following terms . . . . read full post
I could not agree more. Above all, even for those less math inclined, the heart of theorycraft is replication. The ability of others to use information provided and achieve the same result every time.
If results can be replicated again and again, the information provided is sound, if not then all the numbers and calculations in the world mean nothing.
That is why there can be less wading through “walls of texts”. If it can be replicated time and time again, the theory craft is sound.
Many people will not want to spend a lot of time analyzing statistical data to determine the sound nature from which information is glened. They’ll run out, test the advice and if it works for enough people, it can be assumed that the data in its self is sound.