3 ms·

Could you give some toy example to illustrate this? I honestly don't understand what you are trying to claim. Toy example to illustrate my claim: Suppose a giv

Could you give some toy example to illustrate this? I honestly don't understand what you are trying to claim. Toy example to illustrate my claim: Suppose a given finding has a probability p of replicating, but the biased market estimates q < p. This means that you must spend $q and if the experiment replicates you'll earn $1.00. On average you'll win $p from these bets - $1.00 exactly p of the time. Your net winnings will be $p-$q. As long as your theory more accurately predicts the replication probability, you make money.

Alex3917 11y ago
As an example, what if the statistical analysis for a study was wrong? In that case the study may well be replicable, but the underlying claim being made by the study is still false. At least in the context of the phrase 'science advances on funeral at a time', usually folks are talking about studies that are wrong for reasons other than replicability. (Because in general it's pretty easy to convince folks that something is false if it can't be replicated, but much more difficult to convince folks that there is some deeper methodological or epistemological issue.)
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Given that replicability would presumably be about predicting observable statistics, an incorrect calculation wouldn't change it. I.e., observe a bernoulli trial and see 60 successes in 100 trials. Plan a followup study which will repeat the bernoulli trial 100x - predictions would be on the # of successes in the followup, not some statistical analysis. The phrase "science advances one funeral at a time" is somewhat orthogonal to this idea - it tends to be about older scientists being unwilling to accept new theories in spite of repeated successes. Such scientists would lose their money if they bet or be ignored if they didn't.

3 ms·

Could you give some toy example to illustrate this? I honestly don't understand what you are trying to claim. Toy example to illustrate my claim: Suppose a giv

by yummyfajitas 11y ago

Alex3917 11y ago
As an example, what if the statistical analysis for a study was wrong? In that case the study may well be replicable, but the underlying claim being made by the study is still false. At least in the context of the phrase 'science advances on funeral at a time', usually folks are talking about studies that are wrong for reasons other than replicability. (Because in general it's pretty easy to convince folks that something is false if it can't be replicated, but much more difficult to convince folks that there is some deeper methodological or epistemological issue.)
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Given that replicability would presumably be about predicting observable statistics, an incorrect calculation wouldn't change it. I.e., observe a bernoulli trial and see 60 successes in 100 trials. Plan a followup study which will repeat the bernoulli trial 100x - predictions would be on the # of successes in the followup, not some statistical analysis. The phrase "science advances one funeral at a time" is somewhat orthogonal to this idea - it tends to be about older scientists being unwilling to accept new theories in spite of repeated successes. Such scientists would lose their money if they bet or be ignored if they didn't.