61–70 of 145 posts
Does anyone know if there are groups aiming for that standard?
I am sometimes amused to read failed replication studies which do not calculate their own statistical power -- so they do not know whether, assuming the original study was correct, they will have the sample size to reliably detect an effect. A failed replication then says nothing about the original conclusions. Statistical error is a hobby of mine. The Economist mentions a few pervasive errors, but there are many mor…
The market produces the current situation because the rate of results is much easier to observe than their reliability.
No one wants to fund a study only to get no result out of it. So they end up getting an unreliable result instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's quite clear that "hackers" don't understand enough about the research to make informed criticisms. Cherry picking two measurements of temperature data does not make for a convincing rebuttal against the overwhelming independent lines of evidence summarized in (among other places), the IPCC reports.
Ah yes. I need to listen to authority and ignore the fact that observed data are falling out the bottom side of their models' 95% confidence intervals. This is how science is done in the modern age.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It didn't mention climate change. I know from past experience that this line of argument -- indeed, any that casts doubt on scientific research -- is a favorite of the "climate skeptic" world. Moreover, I know that the Economist has a center-right political bias. Maybe they're advocating for something specific here (it's honestly unclear), but given that the Economist almost never writes anything of substance about s…
Evidently you don't consume the Economist very often. http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/09/ipcc-climate-... To put it in the language you seem to prefer, Bill O'Reilly thinks the Economist leans left. I disagree with Mr. O'Reilly's employers and will not send them traffic, but support for this claim is easily googled. ETA: The link above is more flip than I'd like. Try this: http://www.economist.com/news/le…
That said, I think the piece is puzzling, not that I'm sure it's a right-wing hatchet job on science.
This is an excellent overview article on an important topic. It mentions many of the most influential authors on the topic of accuracy of scientific publications. Hacker News readers may enjoy "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation"[1] by Peter Norvig, a LISP hacker who is now director of research at Google, on how to interpret scientific research. Norvig's essay is my all-time favorite link to shar…
This beautiful (parent) comment, in contrast to the main article, actually contains links and references to the items it refers to. Is there some compelling reason I don't understand why _so_ many magazines / websites, even high profile reputable ones, cannot manage to link or cite?
I am sometimes amused to read failed replication studies which do not calculate their own statistical power -- so they do not know whether, assuming the original study was correct, they will have the sample size to reliably detect an effect. A failed replication then says nothing about the original conclusions. Statistical error is a hobby of mine. The Economist mentions a few pervasive errors, but there are many mor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where did this article mention climate change? If you agree with every fact in the article, why would you look for a hidden agenda? Your comment makes you seem a bit paranoid.
I also think the linked article was somewhat strange. Or maybe just linkbaity. The title can be paraphrased as "To an alarming degree, science is not self-correcting." However, the article actually describes the way science is supposed to work, which is self-correcting. The main criticism in the article seems to be that, in much of current scientific practice, the self-correction doesn't happen immediately. Well, it…
Ideally, you'd like to see the original study being discredited before the point where 9 separate studies have exposed serious problems with it (and it's not clear that it's been discredited yet). Papers continue to pick up citations even after they've been formally retracted; that's also not a good example of self-correction working well even though the retraction process is supposed to be self-correction. Correction hasn't happened until people stop believing in problematic papers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It didn't mention climate change. I know from past experience that this line of argument -- indeed, any that casts doubt on scientific research -- is a favorite of the "climate skeptic" world. Moreover, I know that the Economist has a center-right political bias. Maybe they're advocating for something specific here (it's honestly unclear), but given that the Economist almost never writes anything of substance about s…
Evidently you don't consume the Economist very often. http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/09/ipcc-climate-... To put it in the language you seem to prefer, Bill O'Reilly thinks the Economist leans left. I disagree with Mr. O'Reilly's employers and will not send them traffic, but support for this claim is easily googled. ETA: The link above is more flip than I'd like. Try this: http://www.economist.com/news/le…
The guy who wrote Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance had a problem with the scientific method too: "Through multiplication upon multiplication of facts, information, theories and hypotheses it is science itself that is leading mankind from single absolute truths to multiple, indeterminate, relative ones. The major producer of the social chaos, the indeterminacy of thoughts and values that rational knowledge is…