[Cryptography] Reproducible results

[Gary Mulder]

On 7 October 2015 at 18:17, Robert L. Wilson <wilson at math.wisc.edu> wrote:

I am interested in whether that is actually being carried out as a standard
> procedure in any, or many, disciplines. I certainly don't object to it as a
> goal and hence as "supposed to be doing". But *Science*magazine, one of
> the major publishers of research articles in many scientific subjects,
> recently carried the suggestion that this ought to be done, as a reaction
> to the number of scientific papers that have been retracted (worldwide, not
> just in *Science*) recently. As a mathematician, where results don't
> usually depend on lab equipment and procedures, the whole discovery and
> publication activity is a little different from many of the subjects they
> publish. But, from what I read in *Science*, I got the impression this
> was not usually a condition for journal acceptance in any subject. Is that
> so?
>

I think the following says it all, albeit from a domain usually far removed
from the rigour of mathematical proof:

http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248


Its unglamorous, poorly funded, and tedious work disproving other
researchers' results. There is also selective bias in journals reporting
novel results versus negative results:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084896


Returning to cryptography, and as a non-cryptographer - how do I verify
that the cryptographic tools I use are "generally regarded" or "provably
demonstrated" as secure? Do I simply rely on the authority of Bruce?

http://www.schneierfacts.com


Regards,
Gary
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20151008/736fcab9/attachment.html>