[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 363 KB, 1698x1719, 1292676603597.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2304637 No.2304637 [Reply] [Original]

http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/01/06/1320248/Journal-Article-On-Precognition-Sparks-Outrage

>Write a paper on Psi and claim to have evidence of precognition: http://dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf
>Get into The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology publishing queue
>Real scientists who actually understand statistics shred your shitty paper to oblivion: www.ruudwetzels.com/articles/Wagenmakersetal_subm.pdf

Superstitious fag status: FUCKING TOLD

>> No.2304642
File: 721 KB, 381x360, spin.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2304642

>> No.2304651

New Scientist's article on the paper:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827873.100-parapsychology-lessons-from-the-fringe.html

>> No.2304681

>Do these results mean
that psi can now be considered real, replicable, and reliable?
>We think that the answer to this question is negative,

Not
>We proved

Just the mainstream being butthurt faggots as per usual

>> No.2304689

thanks, OP

>> No.2304720

>evidence of psi is found
>therefore parapsychologists have to change the way they analyse data

>fudge the data to fit the theory

>> No.2304738

>>2304720
Sounds like creationism.

>> No.2304792

>>2304738
pretty much

>> No.2304817

>>2304720
> didn't read the paper

>> No.2304839
File: 57 KB, 397x600, kristen_bell.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2304839

KB is so fucking hot.

>> No.2304849

Skimming the last article now. Epic. And, it seems, a very good treatise on how to properly support or disprove a hypothesis through statistical significance of experimental evidence.

>> No.2304859

Peer review is so sexy.

>> No.2304862

>>2304849
I agree. This is a fucking great paper.

>> No.2304863

>>2304681
You had best be trolling, nigger. The burden of proof is on the people with the extraordinary claim. As usual, they haven't provided statistically convincing evidence. Just fudging, bad statistics, and wishful thinking.

Read the last article.

>> No.2304868
File: 476 KB, 1024x781, thou vexed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2304868

>>2304681

>> No.2304876

>>2304738

>implying creationism is not obstruction of knowledge.

>> No.2304881

>>2304876
I never implied that.

>> No.2304942

>>2304637
>This research was supported by Vidi grants from the Dutch Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).
>Dutch Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).
>(NWO).

Dammit people, is right behind your eyes!

>> No.2304957

Wait, why is it so bad to make up a hypothesis conforming to your results? The results themselves are as statistically significant as they would be post hypothesis.

>> No.2304970

Jesus titty christ, this Wagenmakers guy doesn't sleep, eat or shit at all... all of he does is publishing papers: http://www.ejwagenmakers.com/papers.html

>> No.2304990

>>2304957
>why is it so bad to make up a hypothesis conforming to your results?
Because Bem didn't care about methodology at all to get results confirming his hypothesis.
That's what they're criticizing him / his paper.

>> No.2305018

>>2304990
Sorry if I wasn't clear, by "why is it so bad to make up a hypothesis conforming to your results?" I meant to ask "why is it so bad to make up a hypothesis conforming to your results?" and not "why are they criticizing this jackass?". I hope that should clear up any confusion.

>> No.2305021

>>2304957

To quote the other paper:

As such, there is nothing wrong with fishing expeditions.
But it is vital to indicate clearly and unambiguously which results are obtained by fishing
expeditions and which results are obtained by conventional confirmatory procedures. In
particular, when results from fishing expeditions are analyzed and presented as if they had
been obtained in a confirmatory fashion, the researcher is hiding the fact that the same data
were used twice: first to discover a new hypothesis, and then to test that hypothesis. If the
researcher fails to state that the data have been so used, this practice is at odds with the
basic ideas that underlie scientific methodology (see Kerr, 1998, for a detailed discussion).
Instead of presenting exploratory findings as confirmatory, one should ideally use a
two-step procedure: first, in the absence of strong theory, one can explore the data until
one discovers an interesting new hypothesis. But this phase of exploration and discovery
needs to be followed by a second phase, one in which the new hypothesis is tested against
new data in a confirmatory fashion. This is particularly important if one wants to convince
a skeptical audience of a controversial claim: after all, confirmatory studies are much more
compelling than exploratory studies. Hence, explorative elements in the research program
should be explicitly mentioned, and statistical results should be adjusted accordingly. In
practice, this means that statistical tests should be corrected to be more conservative.

>> No.2305036

>>2305021
>But this phase of exploration and discovery
needs to be followed by a second phase, one in which the new hypothesis is tested against
new data in a confirmatory fashion.
This, and the "Problem 3" section about how p-values aren't enough to decide if you can reject the null hypothesis, was really educational.