Page 1 of 1 [ 13 posts ]
07 Jan 2011, 10:41 pm
08 Jan 2011, 1:14 am
08 Jan 2011, 9:07 am
jamesongerbil wrote:
That's awesome, thanks so much for sharing!
You're very welcome!
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,227
Location: the island of defective toy santas
08 Jan 2011, 12:56 pm
08 Jan 2011, 4:13 pm
Can you see the print page here?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010 ... ntPage=all
It's quite a complex idea, and quite a long read.
As I understand it, it seems that you can create testable positive scientific results, but then for some reason, the positive results start tailing off.
Quote:
All sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings have started to look increasingly uncertain. It’s as if our facts were losing their truth: claims that have been enshrined in textbooks are suddenly unprovable. This phenomenon doesn’t yet have an official name, but it’s occurring across a wide range of fields, from psychology to ecology. In the field of medicine, the phenomenon seems extremely widespread, affecting not only antipsychotics but also therapies ranging from cardiac stents to Vitamin E and antidepressants: Davis has a forthcoming analysis demonstrating that the efficacy of antidepressants has gone down as much as threefold in recent decades.
There is an example of pharmaceuticals that start out efficacious, but then with more testing, the effectiveness starts declining, for seemingly no good reason.
Another example given is an ESP experiment that was conducted, where one man achieved one in two million results, three times in a row. But then, with later testing, his ability to recreate that result tailed off.
The Third example was a seeming correlation of symmetry of physical features in males to genetic attractiveness, which then devolved into a seeming non correlation;
Quote:
Then the theory started to fall apart. In 1994, there were fourteen published tests of symmetry and sexual selection, and only eight found a correlation. In 1995, there were eight papers on the subject, and only four got a positive result. By 1998, when there were twelve additional investigations of fluctuating asymmetry, only a third of them confirmed the theory. Worse still, even the studies that yielded some positive result showed a steadily declining effect size. Between 1992 and 1997, the average effect size shrank by eighty per cent.
It's pretty spooky. I am still processing what I think it could mean. I may share my view later
08 Jan 2011, 4:49 pm
08 Jan 2011, 5:11 pm
08 Jan 2011, 5:19 pm
08 Jan 2011, 5:30 pm
08 Jan 2011, 6:17 pm
10 Jan 2011, 9:18 am
10 Jan 2011, 11:28 am
Janissy wrote:
I actually find this rather comforting. It shows me that the innaccuracies caused by positive reporting/publication bias/confirmation bias can be corrected with repeated testing. It shows me that the scientific method is very good indeed, but that it takes many, many replications of an experiment to nullify the errors introduced by excited humans.
For many years I thought this is what had happened with Wakefield and the vaccine/autism research. I thought he had unconsciously introduced error with positive reporting. More recently it turns out that he consciously committed fraud and flat out fabricated data. Although deliberate fraud is reprehensible, I don't think there is anything dishonerable about innaccuracies caused by positive reporting/publication bias/confirmation bias. I think it's just one of those natural, human things that the scientific method eventually corrects for. It's just that this correction takes many years and many repetitions of the research. I like the name Decline Effect. But I think it's just a cute way of pointing out that experimental repetition must happen over the course of years in order to counter unconscious bias of scientists.
Unfortunately the media jumps all over research the split second it is published. They aren't about to wait 10 years for the Decline Effect to take effect. This makes sense. It's in their own best interests as media to pounce on news stories just as fast as they hear about them. It's their role. Unfortunately it does give people who are unfamiliar with the scientific process a skewed view and makes them think that the scientific process is inherently flawed because results keep changing.
Thank you also to Wornlight for the link giving the calm explanation of why this shouldn't rock anybody's world about the reliability of the scientific method.
For many years I thought this is what had happened with Wakefield and the vaccine/autism research. I thought he had unconsciously introduced error with positive reporting. More recently it turns out that he consciously committed fraud and flat out fabricated data. Although deliberate fraud is reprehensible, I don't think there is anything dishonerable about innaccuracies caused by positive reporting/publication bias/confirmation bias. I think it's just one of those natural, human things that the scientific method eventually corrects for. It's just that this correction takes many years and many repetitions of the research. I like the name Decline Effect. But I think it's just a cute way of pointing out that experimental repetition must happen over the course of years in order to counter unconscious bias of scientists.
Unfortunately the media jumps all over research the split second it is published. They aren't about to wait 10 years for the Decline Effect to take effect. This makes sense. It's in their own best interests as media to pounce on news stories just as fast as they hear about them. It's their role. Unfortunately it does give people who are unfamiliar with the scientific process a skewed view and makes them think that the scientific process is inherently flawed because results keep changing.
Thank you also to Wornlight for the link giving the calm explanation of why this shouldn't rock anybody's world about the reliability of the scientific method.
Thanks for your input Janissy. As a non sciency person, I was led to the decline effect story as meaning something other than what it does appear to be. Occam's razor seems to have put things in perspective here.
I still like the idea of a universe with an elastic reality
13 Jan 2011, 9:23 pm
