I had heard about the ESP study finding small but statistically significant effects but I didn’t know about its context in the replication crisis.
It demonstrated the power of p-hacking
Quote:
But for most observers, at least the mainstream ones, the paper posed a very difficult dilemma. It was both methodologically sound and logically insane. Daryl Bem had seemed to prove that time can flow in two directions—that ESP is real. If you bought into those results, you’d be admitting that much of what you understood about the universe was wrong. If you rejected them, you’d be admitting something almost as momentous: that the standard methods of psychology cannot be trusted, and that much of what gets published in the field—and thus, much of what we think we understand about the mind—could be total bunk.
And
Quote:
The replication crisis as it’s understood today may yet prove to be a passing worry or else a mild problem calling for a soft corrective. It might also grow and spread in years to come, flaring from the social sciences into other disciplines, burning trails of cinder through medicine, neuroscience, and chemistry. It’s hard to see into the future. But here’s one thing we can say about the past: The final research project of Bem’s career landed like an ember in the underbrush and set his field ablaze.
The article even mentions John Ioannis who helped lead the charge on drawing sweeping conclusions from shitty back before he lost his mind and became a Covid skeptic high on his own academic fame.
Dr Bem is not a charlatan or a fraud. I think he attempted to use the tools of science responsibly. I don’t suspect him of wrongdoing. He wanted large data sets and significant results and replication.
His initial paper had 9 experiments with 8 of them find statistically significant evidence for esp. he worked with tiger researchers in a very transparent way to help them try to replicate his work.
Quote:
There were other replication failures, too. But then, there were also some successes. Bem has since put out a meta-analysis that includes 23 exact replications of his original experiments, going back to 2003. When he pooled all those studies with his own, creating a pool of more than 2,000 subjects, he found a positive effect. In his view, the data showed ESP was real.
Others have disputed this assessment. Wagenmakers notes that if Bem restricted his analysis to those studies that came out after his—that is to say, if he’d looked at the efforts of mainstream researchers and skipped the ones by fellow travelers who’d heard about his work at meetings of the Parapsychological Association—the positive effect would disappear.
Here comes Ioannidis.
Quote:
In 2005, while Bem was still working on his ESP experiments, medical doctor and statistician John Ioannidis published a short but often-cited essay arguing that “most published research findings are false.” Among the major sources of this problem, according to Ioannidis, was that researchers gave themselves too much flexibility in designing and analyzing experiments—that is, they might be trying lots of different methods and reporting only the “best” results.
This will be kind of hilarious 15 years later when Ioannidis does some really hackneyed science as a Covid skeptic.
Many scientists were in a difficult position as we want to respect evidence and not be dogmatic but ESP is obviously bullshit with no mechanism for an effect that is non obvious outside of hoaxes.
Quote:
In the weeks to come, Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn continued their discussion over email. First, they made a list of ways that research could go wrong. There were lots of options to consider. Instead of deciding on a sample size ahead of time, psychologists might analyze the data from their studies as they went along, adding new subjects until they found results they liked. Or they might do lots of different tests, based on lots of different variables, then pick out the ones that delivered clean results. They might report unexpected findings as if they’d been predicted. They might neglect to mention all their failed experiments.
These dodgy methods were clearly rife in academic science. A 2011 survey of more than 2,000 university psychologists had found that more than half of those researchers admitted using them. But how badly could they really screw things up? By running 15,000 simulations, Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn showed that a researcher could almost double her false-positive rate (often treated as if it were 5 percent) with just a single, seemingly innocuous manipulation. And if a researcher combined several questionable (but common) research practices—fiddling with the sample size and choosing among dependent variables after the fact, for instance—the false-positive rate might soar to more than 60 percent.
Do we not use fox to describe attractive people anymore?
This is the internet, so yes but only because they’re wearing a fox outfit.
Although following a fur farm rescue has quickly changed my perception of ‘being a fox.’ She dug a hole through the foam mattress, and then peed on my shoes while screaming when I told her no, what a fox!
As results rolled in from around the world, the researchers kept finding the same result. In 38 out of 40 countries, people were more likely to report receiving wallets with money than those without. And in the other two, the decrease in reporting rates for the wallets with money were not statistically significant.
And
Quote:
Cohn says the results there were even more dramatic. "The highest reporting rate was found in the condition where the wallet included $100," he says. Forty-six percent of wallets with no money were reported, compared with 61% of those with about $13 and 72% of those with nearly $100.
Maybe black holes are what happened when the Programmer divided by 0.
The idea that black holes could be the result of dividing by zero is an interesting concept, but it's important to note that it is purely speculative and not supported by current scientific evidence or theories.
Black holes are regions in space where the gravitational pull is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape from them. They are formed when massive stars collapse in on themselves, creating a singularity - a point of infinite density and zero volume - at their center. This singularity is surrounded by an event horizon, which is the point of no return beyond which anything that enters will be pulled inexorably toward the singularity.
The formation of black holes is a complex process that is currently well-understood by astrophysicists through the application of known physical laws and mathematical models. While it is certainly intriguing to think about the possibility of black holes being the result of dividing by zero, it is not a scientifically accepted explanation for their existence.
Maybe black holes are what happened when the Programmer divided by 0.
The idea that black holes could be the result of dividing by zero is an interesting concept, but it's important to note that it is purely speculative and not supported by current scientific evidence or theories.
Black holes are regions in space where the gravitational pull is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape from them. They are formed when massive stars collapse in on themselves, creating a singularity - a point of infinite density and zero volume - at their center. This singularity is surrounded by an event horizon, which is the point of no return beyond which anything that enters will be pulled inexorably toward the singularity.
The formation of black holes is a complex process that is currently well-understood by astrophysicists through the application of known physical laws and mathematical models. While it is certainly intriguing to think about the possibility of black holes being the result of dividing by zero, it is not a scientifically accepted explanation for their existence.
The idea that black holes are what happened when the Programmer divided by 0 is not a scientifically accurate explanation. Black holes are formed through the collapse of massive stars, resulting in a region of space in which the gravitational pull is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape. The mathematics and physics behind black holes are complex and involve concepts such as general relativity and quantum mechanics. While the analogy of "dividing by 0" may have some appeal as a way to explain the unknown and mysterious nature of black holes, it is not a scientifically accepted explanation for their existence.
- Not ChatGPT
__________________
"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, "Is it reasonable?""
This was fascinating, while only a 2d simulation, it’s easy to visualize a tesla valve with laminar flow creating pressure one way but not the other, whereas in a more complex simulation it’s vortex formation that creates the directional flow. It also shows potential issues with a real tesla valve as the side lobes become stagnation points during normal flow.
I find it depends on what kind of pill I'm swallowing, but I generally tilt my head back. I also don't place a pill on my tongue. If it's coated and solid, I'll squeeze it between my fingers to shoot it in the back of my mouth, sometimes with liquid, sometimes not. My uncoated pills get tossed in the back and swallowed with water.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Last edited by specious_reasons; 05-02-2023 at 03:27 AM.
All five mass extinctions have been prevented by tardigrades.
They hardly prevented them, did they? The mass extinctions actually occurred.
Did tardigrades instead cause the mass extinctions? And if humans are - as is frequently claimed - implicated in the current, sixth extinction, are we unbeknownst doing the secret biddings of very tiny tardigrade overlords?
Sleight of hand magic capitalizes on the observer’s expectations of specific manual movements,1,2 making it an optimal model to investigate the intersection between the ability to manually produce an action and the ability to predict the actions of others. The French drop effect involves mimicking a hand-to-hand object transfer by pantomiming a partially occluded precision grip. Therefore, to be misled by it, the observer ought to infer the opposing movement of the magician’s thumb.3 Here, we report how three species of platyrrhine with inherently distinct biomechanical ability4,5,6—common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus), Humboldt’s squirrel monkeys (Saimiri cassiquiarensis), and yellow-breasted capuchins (Sapajus xanthosternos)—experienced this effect. Additionally, we included an adapted version of the trick using a grip that all primates can perform (power grip), thus removing the opposing thumb as the causal agent of the effect. When observing the French drop, only the species with full or partial opposable thumbs were misled by it, just like humans. Conversely, the adapted version of the trick misled all three monkey species, regardless of their manual anatomy. The results provide evidence of a strong interaction between the physical ability to approximate a manual movement and the predictions primates make when observing the actions of others, highlighting the importance of physical factors in shaping the perception of actions.
Interesting thrad about science in long form and science loldebate in internet:
The incentive structure is broken. Folks. Science cannot “win” a media performance because science is not entertainment. Science is a practice, a method of pursuing truth. And in our current political media environment it is at a disadvantage against performative “whataboutism”. pic.twitter.com/bLuER07dOl
Woo MMA matches to decide science!
Forget peer review, the journal of Macho Bro science will be staging several cage matches to determine who’s paper is published. Entertainment will include The Anti-vax-kid vs one dozen midgets in nanobot costumes, and a beer chugging contest, last to spew gets their paper highlighted in next months journal!
Re: Drive by science
marySQ!
Linear Mode
