 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ib/parapsychology_the_control_group_for_science/
An interesting observation...
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6-12-2009 1:38, Darren New wrote:
> http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ib/parapsychology_the_control_group_for_science/
>
> An interesting observation...
>
On the question of how many results in real science are wrong: in
Medicine about one in twenty as everybody uses a p-value of .05 for
significance.
That is for the measurable quantities. There are also wrong ideas,
explanations, procedures, and theories. That is much harder to quantify.
Within my own field I know at least 4 (including one where we may be
wrong), but I have no idea about how many there are in total.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ib/parapsychology_the_control_group_for_science/
> An interesting observation...
It's probably quite true that many scientists (real, serious ones, not
the wackos) suffer from things like confirmation bias, without even knowing,
and thus end up with false or irrelevant results.
Fortunately we have the peer reviewing process which filters out most of
the wrong results.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Parapsychologists are constantly protesting that they are playing by all the
standard scientific rules, and yet their results are being ignored - that they
are unfairly being held to higher standards than everyone else. I'm willing to
believe that. It just means that the standard statistical methods of science are
so weak and flawed as to permit a field of study to sustain itself in the
complete absence of any subject matter.
just wait for Zuul to come up... :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: Wasn't someone talking about ESP here?
Date: 6 Dec 2009 11:24:53
Message: <4b1bdad5@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/06/09 07:36, Warp wrote:
> Fortunately we have the peer reviewing process which filters out most of
> the wrong results.
Having engaged in the peer review process, I don't have too strong
belief in its effectiveness. I haven't really thought of an alternative,
though.
--
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright
ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little
sign of breaking down in the near future.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Wasn't someone talking about ESP here?
Date: 6 Dec 2009 13:42:06
Message: <4b1bfafe@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Having engaged in the peer review process, I don't have too strong
> belief in its effectiveness. I haven't really thought of an alternative,
> though.
I think it's effective for ruling out the obviously-flawed experiments.
Combine that with the requirement for repeatability and you get science. The
repeatability is where the parapsychology falls down.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6-12-2009 19:42, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Having engaged in the peer review process, I don't have too strong
>> belief in its effectiveness. I haven't really thought of an
>> alternative, though.
>
> I think it's effective for ruling out the obviously-flawed experiments.
> Combine that with the requirement for repeatability and you get science.
>
In my experience that is not always the case. When an important figure
has a theory that sounds plausible he may get addicted to the grants he
gets to expand that theory. Data that would show that the theory is
wrong will be extremely difficult to get published because he and his
followers will hold key positions in the peer review process. (Sorry for
the him, in my field I haven't seen it with women. In a neighbouring
field possibly)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 6-12-2009 19:42, Darren New wrote:
>> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>> Having engaged in the peer review process, I don't have too
>>> strong belief in its effectiveness. I haven't really thought of an
>>> alternative, though.
>>
>> I think it's effective for ruling out the obviously-flawed
>> experiments. Combine that with the requirement for repeatability and
>> you get science.
>
> In my experience that is not always the case.
Fair enough. Certainly *eventually* it will get overthrown, like after the
original discoverer has died. :-) Unlike certain other fields of endeavor in
which it is *better* to have unreproducible miracles and ignore evidence in
favor of faith than it is to look at evidence presented by your peers.
I was thinking more the "New Kind of Science" self-publication or the Cold
Fusion publish-first-in-the-newspapers kind of avoidance-of-error.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> a écrit dans le message de
news:4b1c2fe5$1@news.povray.org...
> I was thinking more the "New Kind of Science" self-publication or the Cold
> Fusion publish-first-in-the-newspapers kind of avoidance-of-error.
Peer-reviewed journals about bogus science (homeopathy, chiropraxy...) do
exist in the medical field. I just read one paper about an homeopathy trial,
which ended positively but with the disclaimer "This study cannot be
conclusive because there is no control group. Neither the physician, nor the
patient was blinded."
It's just a matter of the peers setting the bar low enough.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/06/09 12:42, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Having engaged in the peer review process, I don't have too strong
>> belief in its effectiveness. I haven't really thought of an
>> alternative, though.
>
> I think it's effective for ruling out the obviously-flawed experiments.
> Combine that with the requirement for repeatability and you get science.
> The repeatability is where the parapsychology falls down.
But peer review doesn't demand repeatability. Well, OK - it should
demand that the setup be described in a way that someone can repeat it,
if that's what you mean.
But I've seen no shortage experimental papers in good journals that
simply don't give enough details for you to repeat it (e.g. key
parameters are missing). I never measured it, but I suspect there's a
positive correlation with such papers and the "fame" of their authors.
The justification I've often been given is one of two: 1) The author
doesn't want to give a way his secrets so that he can remain competitive
in publishing papers (you may be shocked at how commonplace this is) 2)
The author is thinking of starting a company and doesn't want to give
trade secrets away.
Essentially, peer review is only good if the peers are good and honest.
I'm skeptical of that.
Peer review can be a good first order filter, but let's not glorify.
Enough junk routinely passes through. I suspect, though, that little of
the junk survives over the long term, but I think enough "damage" is
still done because of it.
PS - Also the case with computational papers, actually. Didn't mean to
single out experimentalists.
--
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright
ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little
sign of breaking down in the near future.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
