3 ms·

There have been studies with over 5-sigma confidence intervals that are not taken seriously simply because it's controversial. It's just we're wired to the stat

by pknight 11y ago

There have been studies with over 5-sigma confidence intervals that are not taken seriously simply because it's controversial. It's just we're wired to the status quo and nobody likes to be tricked. And you can't keep say, a factory or a house running on snake oil, so it will be evident pretty quickly.

api 11y ago
Show me a house running on an eCat then.
Oletros 11y ago
> There have been studies with over 5-sigma confidence intervals that are not taken seriously simply because it's controversial. Can you link to some of them?
- pknight 11y ago
  Check out http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2423692 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2423692 "We here report a meta-analysis of 90 experiments from 33 laboratories in 14 countries which yielded an overall effect greater than 6 sigma, z = 6.40, p = 1.2 × 10^-10 with an effect size (Hedges’ g) of 0.09." Non-fringe scientist Daryl Bem published a very controversial study involving 9 experiments. Replications were encouraged and were done across the world in the years following. With failures and successes, resulting in this meta study. Amount of critics persuaded? Not that many probably. The parallel here is lamenting the lack of an accepted theory or no theory at all and concluding that thereby the results are fraudulent as well as the process involved in deriving the results, by definition. Bystanders often say, well if it's true why isn't there a peer-reviewed study etc, as if it matters. You can publish papers up the wazoo it won't matter. If there's something special happening, there's going to be this period where mainstream science denies or disproves of it, regardless of studies and papers. Especially when gatekeepers have vested into a position of rejecting the idea. As far as LENR is concerned, I can't say Rossi inspires confidence, but the fact that many institutions are researching this area tells me there might be something special going on. Many people aren't comfortable with the feeling that something might turn out to be false, so they assume it's a hoax a priori.

by pknight 11y ago

api 11y ago

Show me a house running on an eCat then.

Oletros 11y ago

> There have been studies with over 5-sigma confidence intervals that are not taken seriously simply because it's controversial. Can you link to some of them?

pknight 11y ago
Check out http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2423692 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2423692 "We here report a meta-analysis of 90 experiments from 33 laboratories in 14 countries which yielded an overall effect greater than 6 sigma, z = 6.40, p = 1.2 × 10^-10 with an effect size (Hedges’ g) of 0.09." Non-fringe scientist Daryl Bem published a very controversial study involving 9 experiments. Replications were encouraged and were done across the world in the years following. With failures and successes, resulting in this meta study. Amount of critics persuaded? Not that many probably. The parallel here is lamenting the lack of an accepted theory or no theory at all and concluding that thereby the results are fraudulent as well as the process involved in deriving the results, by definition. Bystanders often say, well if it's true why isn't there a peer-reviewed study etc, as if it matters. You can publish papers up the wazoo it won't matter. If there's something special happening, there's going to be this period where mainstream science denies or disproves of it, regardless of studies and papers. Especially when gatekeepers have vested into a position of rejecting the idea. As far as LENR is concerned, I can't say Rossi inspires confidence, but the fact that many institutions are researching this area tells me there might be something special going on. Many people aren't comfortable with the feeling that something might turn out to be false, so they assume it's a hoax a priori.