3 ms·

> That's the problem: we can't even say that. The paper you cite says that most published research is false. You infer from this that published research is no

> That's the problem: we can't even say that. The paper you cite says that most published research is false. You infer from this that published research is no better than no source. But this is wrong! If published research is true 30% of the time, but people's intuitions (on questions research is published on) are so only say 10% of the time, then going with published papers is a better choice. I'd like to know if people feel, after reading TFA (or the psychology literature), how likely it is that people are wrong most of the time on important questions.

coldtea 10y ago
>But this is wrong! If published research is true 30% of the time, but people's intuitions (on questions research is published on) are so only say 10% of the time, then going with published papers is a better choice. Only if "people's intuitions" are true on a less than a "published research" percentage.
- sinxoveretothex 10y ago
  Indeed, technical error on my part. The parent commenter is only "most likely wrong" given the psychological literature on this is most likely right. Some of it you can prove to yourself by experiment such as by following along this ASAP science video[1] (it's essentially Kanehman's Thinking Fast and Slow in accessible form). [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JiTz2i4VHFw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JiTz2i4VHFw
- erelde 10y ago
  > Only if "people's intuitions" are true on a less than a "published research" percentage. I think it's a safe assumption. Many people assume intuitively there's a "why" to their existence. Many people assume from their day-to-day experience that the Earth is flat. Without rigorous method, "people's intuitions" is just that, "intuitions".
- hashkb 10y ago
  Why on Earth would you assume your intuitions are better than professionals combining intuition with methodology in good faith? The article we're commenting on (which you can discard more easily than I) describes a study you can reproduce easily to prove it to yourself. Why don't you?

coldtea 10y ago

>But this is wrong! If published research is true 30% of the time, but people's intuitions (on questions research is published on) are so only say 10% of the time, then going with published papers is a better choice. Only if "people's intuitions" are true on a less than a "published research" percentage.

sinxoveretothex 10y ago
Indeed, technical error on my part. The parent commenter is only "most likely wrong" given the psychological literature on this is most likely right. Some of it you can prove to yourself by experiment such as by following along this ASAP science video[1] (it's essentially Kanehman's Thinking Fast and Slow in accessible form). [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JiTz2i4VHFw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JiTz2i4VHFw
erelde 10y ago
> Only if "people's intuitions" are true on a less than a "published research" percentage. I think it's a safe assumption. Many people assume intuitively there's a "why" to their existence. Many people assume from their day-to-day experience that the Earth is flat. Without rigorous method, "people's intuitions" is just that, "intuitions".
hashkb 10y ago
Why on Earth would you assume your intuitions are better than professionals combining intuition with methodology in good faith? The article we're commenting on (which you can discard more easily than I) describes a study you can reproduce easily to prove it to yourself. Why don't you?