>Repetition is good, of course, but isn't a replacement for good science in the first place. Repetition is science. >Define repetition. Google says: "the rec

>Repetition is good, of course, but isn't a replacement for good science in the first place. Repetition is science. >Define repetition. Google says: "the recurrence of an action or event." Science requires 1) a prediction of an observation 2) repeated observation consistent with the prediction. If there is no repeated observation of what was predicted, it is not science. >But everyone believes the results, and believes that they represent the Higgs. It doesn't matter what is believed. "Everyone" used to believe all kinds of things, that doesn't mean that those things were true, or accurate. Repeated observation of prior predictions is all that matters. >When it costs billions to construct your experiment, sometimes reproducing the exact same thing can be hard. That doesn't excuse, or allow in, things that haven't been reproduced.