391–400 of 406 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a study on salt you may enjoy: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29359681
I'm not a native speaker, what does the K stand for? Potassium? (as in "Kalium-salt") Another argument in favour of eating potassium and less sodium, which is pretty well established: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/lowering-our-sodium-to-pota...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I right in thinking that statistical power is the true positive rate, so a test that always rejected the null hypothesis (whether correctly or incorrectly) would have the highest possible statistical power?
No, statistical power as a concept is independent of the observed result of a test. It is widely misunderstood though, so often people try to use an observed result to justify low power. http://andrewgelman.com/2017/08/17/just-google-despite-limit...
"The power of a binary hypothesis test is the probability that the test correctly rejects the null hypothesis (H0) when a specific alternative hypothesis (H1) is true. The statistical power ranges from 0 to 1, and as statistical power increases, the probability of making a type 2 error decreases. For a type 2 error probability of β, the corresponding statistical power is 1-β. "
So according to that, if I always reject H0 whether rightly or wrongly, that means β=0 and power=1.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, indeed my immediate response to that comment was "that's not how science works, it's falsificationist". What is your view on science, do you think it can create - and verify - a true result? Whither axiomatic underpinning in such a view?
Well thanks for asking. I think it's clear that science gets us truth, but that the mechanism for that complex social activity can't be reduced to a few axioms or principles; Feyerabend gives a detailed description [1] of how bad a scientist Galileo was (as judged by modern theories of what science is), yet he was right, and he advanced truth. [1] Paul Feyerabend, Against Method (1975)
Heliocentrism isn't truth, it's opinion [that's my opinion, lol!!]. Einstein's relativity makes heliocentrism false in demanding that there is no aether and so no special points in space.
Science provides our understanding of a best current description of reality - the whole point of scientific endeavour is to demonstrate we were wrong and that our understanding/description was flawed.
Moreover it relies on maths, which is provably unable to verify it's own consistency and completeness.
Furthermore it's an axiomatic system that produces a probabilistic framework that gives us little to hang our conception of reality on [what I'm saying is our perception is not particularly informed by physical reality, we have to subdue our instinctive perceptions to work with what amounts to our best, most consistent, physics view of reality].
Science gives us as much truth as we can see in a well lit test-tube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note that I wrote around 50, not after 50. Middle age is usually defined as the 40 to 60 range (or more recently held to be slightly later, 45-65). That is the period when people flourish. That is certainly not when people are "elderly." Interestingly the Ancient Greeks used to report the time when one flourished rather than their date of birth. Neither extreme athletic performance nor ELO rating are measures of norm…
Are you equating "flourishing" with "being in your prime"? Because I don't consider those to be the same. Being in your prime is about peak potential. And sure, the age at which you have peak potential varies by activity. My early 20s is when I have the _opportunity_ to be the best sprinter I'll ever be. That's my prime. But say I first take up sprinting in my late 30s, and put in my best sprint time at the age of 40…
I don't understand your (and others') focus on peak extreme-athletic performance, or peak chess-playing ranking. Why is it problematic to assert that people in their middle age are normally healthy, fully functional, flourishing human beings?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well thanks for asking. I think it's clear that science gets us truth, but that the mechanism for that complex social activity can't be reduced to a few axioms or principles; Feyerabend gives a detailed description [1] of how bad a scientist Galileo was (as judged by modern theories of what science is), yet he was right, and he advanced truth. [1] Paul Feyerabend, Against Method (1975)
And thanks for responding ... Heliocentrism isn't truth, it's opinion [that's my opinion, lol!!]. Einstein's relativity makes heliocentrism false in demanding that there is no aether and so no special points in space. Science provides our understanding of a best current description of reality - the whole point of scientific endeavour is to demonstrate we were wrong and that our understanding/description was flawed. M…
Note: this was a relatively small sample (40 total, split in half for placebo/not), who were elderly people who already have "mild" memory problems, and given a concentrated turmeric derivative rather than just sprinkling it over food. In summary: very cool, and I'd offer these curcumin supplements to anyone 50+ but sprinkling turmeric on your breakfast cereal ain't going to do much for high schoolers.
40? so nothing relevant? :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There isn't very much curcumin in turmeric. About 2% by weight. It would take 4.5grams of dried turmeric to get the same dose from the study. Admittedly it doesn't talk about bioavailability of turmeric powder.
Sorry to leave two comments in the same thread, but while I’m here... A tablespoon of turmeric weighs about 8 grams, so I don’t see why 4.5 would be an unrealistic amount to consume per day. Coffee is only about 1.8% caffeine by weight, but it gets the job done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And thanks for responding ... Heliocentrism isn't truth, it's opinion [that's my opinion, lol!!]. Einstein's relativity makes heliocentrism false in demanding that there is no aether and so no special points in space. Science provides our understanding of a best current description of reality - the whole point of scientific endeavour is to demonstrate we were wrong and that our understanding/description was flawed. M…
Actually GR makes both geocentrism and heliocentrism "true". One is free to pick whatever coordinate system is most convenient to solve a given problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're making some very, very broad, blanket statements about vast swaths of human experience and recorded wisdom (hint: that usually doesn't work out so well - nuance is our friend!). But, to play along, in attempt to affirm or deny this - let's start with what you mean by "those texts". Which texts, specifically, are you referring to, when you say that they contain absolutely zero applicable content to the care of…
>You're making some very, very broad, blanket statements about vast swaths of human experience and recorded wisdom (hint: that usually doesn't work out so well - nuance is our friend!). I don't know about you, but when I read about applying dung into my wounds, I kinda lose interest in the remaining 4000 pages, and also happily forgo the 'ward off evil spirits' bonus that it brings. >Which texts, specifically, are yo…