posted on July 12, 2021 11:36 PM by
u/SailOfIgnorance
53
u/scruiser57 pointsat 1626137928.000000
P-hacking is a thing and the replication crisis is a thing… but the
solution isn’t to throw out all papers you cannot personally
replicate.
Serious talk: pay attention to the details of the methods of the
papers and the analyses used. If you actually get a PhD through
academia, your advisor should have plenty to say about what methods in
your field have a risk of generating misleading statistics and figures
(it is a running joke in my lab to make fun of papers that use
dimensionality reduction in neural data to make plots of trajectories in
state space because the tend to do things like make trivial results look
impressive).
Of course, this would require Yudkowsky to have any experience in
academia and science outside of pop science and his autodidactic
education.
> but the solution isn’t to throw out all papers you cannot personally replicate
I dunno. If you're replicating them with n = 2 and no controls or general rigor it should go pretty fast. Like if you have a couple roommates, you could probably knock out a few dozen a night.
I found a paper called "women don't exist" and it really resonated with me so I'm really sad the MSM didn't publish it. I polled my roommates if they identified as women, and they don't, so n = 2 women don't exist QED I believe this paper.
/s
>If you're replicating them with n = 2 and no controls
No, you misunderstand. The 2nd guy is the control. When both the control and test agree, that's like 2x as much evidence.
I've noticing that most Rationalists don't remotely understand academia. If I had a nickel for every time my Rationalist friends brought up a study or book from the 80s that had been refuted by a dozen papers and claimed it was "the only good source" and that I was an idiot for thinking otherwise, I'd be a rich man.
No no, that is physics, a hard math masculine field of science which actually comes out right (except for many worlds vs. collapse interpretations of quantum physics because scientists don’t know how to set their priors right). Ignoring all published work is for fields like Psychology. In soft, low math, low decoupler, feminine fields setting all your priors right and ignoring the dirty frequentists stats in the published work let’s you throw out the published results with your ~~gut feelings~~ logically calculated priors and only accept results that your informal n=2 studies confirm.
\s just in case
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.
I have checked 79,261,436 comments, and only 21,825 of them were in alphabetical order.
P-hacking is a thing and the replication crisis is a thing… but the solution isn’t to throw out all papers you cannot personally replicate.
Serious talk: pay attention to the details of the methods of the papers and the analyses used. If you actually get a PhD through academia, your advisor should have plenty to say about what methods in your field have a risk of generating misleading statistics and figures (it is a running joke in my lab to make fun of papers that use dimensionality reduction in neural data to make plots of trajectories in state space because the tend to do things like make trivial results look impressive).
Of course, this would require Yudkowsky to have any experience in academia and science outside of pop science and his autodidactic education.
FWIW, this is the best attempt at empiricism I’ve seen from him.
Brb building my own micro large supercollider
Reading the Twitter commentary made me snort out loud (SOL).
The way my pappy taught it, the number of Xs was the number of distillations, not filtrations.