What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination? Ashcans and unobtainable dollars! Children screaming under the stairways!
Allan Crossman calls parapsychology the control group for science. That number tells you how many people will recover whether the drug works or not.
That number tells you how many studies will discover positive results whether the phenomenon is real or not. Trying to set up placebo science would be a logistical nightmare.
The results are pretty dismal. Parapsychologists are able to produce experimental evidence for psychic phenomena about as easily as normal scientists are able to produce such evidence for normal, non-psychic phenomena. As Eliezer Yudkowsky puts it: 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.
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. These sorts of thoughts have become more common lately in different fields.
Psychologists admit to a crisis of replication as some of their most interesting findings turn out to be spurious. And in medicine, John Ioannides and others have been criticizing the research for a decade now and telling everyone they need to up their standards.
But there is broad agreement among the most intelligent voices I read 12345 about a couple of promising directions we could go: Demand very large sample size.
Demand replication, preferably exact replication, most preferably multiple exact replications. Trust systematic reviews and meta-analyses rather than individual studies. Meta-analyses must prove homogeneity of the studies they analyze.
Use Bayesian rather than frequentist analysis, or even combine both techniques. It is far too easy to massage p-values to get less than 0. Require pre-registration of trials.
Do heterogeneity analyses or at least observe and account for differences in the studies you analyze. Demand randomized controlled trials. Stricter effect size criteria. Well, what now, motherfuckers? Everyone had a lot of criticisms, some of which were very very goodand the study failed replication several times.
By my count, Bem follows all of the commandments except  and . And he apologizes for the small effect size but points out that some effect sizes are legitimately very small, this is no smaller than a lot of other commonly-accepted results, and that a high enough p-value ought to make up for a low effect size.
This is far better than the average meta-analysis.Want to improve your business writing skills? Join the Part Snackable Writing Course and learn how to write better marketing copy (it’s free!). What do you need to know about code to survive in a suspicious world?
A list of every Word of the Year selection released by ashio-midori.com ashio-midori.com's first Word of the Year was chosen in Current issue: AUGUST (To read all these articles and more, subscribe to the print or electronic editions) We love our Upper Valley bands.
When it comes to the Washington music scene, Seattle may be the first thing that comes to mind for the average music lover. A company that grows at 1% a week will grow x a year, whereas a company that grows at 5% a week will grow x. A company making $ a month (a typical number early in YC) and growing at 1% a week will 4 years later be making $ a month, which is .
Thanks! I taught a class on Hotel and Restaurant English a little over year ago at my college and found the lists already out there to be less than perfect and then my OC kicked in .