4 ms·

>"I suck at statistics and won't make a good formal scientist" Most really good science got done before statistics was even a thing (starting in the 1930s-1940

by nonbel 8y ago

>"I suck at statistics and won't make a good formal scientist" Most really good science got done before statistics was even a thing (starting in the 1930s-1940s). Stats has very little to do with being a good scientist.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
A great deal of older science was done by explaining what was already invented. We seem to have reached a point where rarely does a new invention throw off previous science without it being based on new science that was already in disagreement with old science. Part of it is because over the last century we had so many people with the freedom to invent that the easy inventions have already been invented, at least where the inventions don't pose significant moral/legal implications (such as someone inventing a new drug and getting people to try it without going through the proper channels).
- nonbel 8y ago
  >"We seem to have reached a point where rarely does a new invention throw off previous science without it being based on new science that was already in disagreement with old science." Or perhaps science has become so institutionalized that any truly novel ideas are suppressed either directly or indirectly (eg the funding for that type of thing is already maxed out). Or maybe the truly novel ideas are getting classified: https://slate.com/technology/2018/05/the-thousands-of-secret-patents-that-the-u-s-government-refuses-to-make-public.html https://slate.com/technology/2018/05/the-thousands-of-secret...
whatshisface 8y ago
Depends on the field. Now that we all realize that you can't actually conclude that you've found something until you've thought about how likely your result was to occur randomly, only a few stragglers and the "lucky ones" where effect sizes are gigantic (you either land on the moon or you don't) can get away without it.
- nonbel 8y ago
  >"how likely your result was to occur randomly"? What does random mean? It just means you didn't include every possible influence in your mathematical model of whats going on. Instead you used some distribution of "noise" as an approximation to whatever was really going on. Eg, if you know everything about airflow, gravitational, electrical, etc forces on a coin throughout a flip, you can predict which side it will land on with near 100% accuracy. Most of the time we don't have info about that available so use the binomial distribution approximation. >"where effect sizes are gigantic" Most science has nothing to do with "effect sizes", in fact I'd say concern about "effect sizes" is indicative of very rudimentary science. Advanced science is concerned with making precise and accurate predictions.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    >What does random mean? It just means you didn't include every possible influence in your mathematical model of whats going on. In physics, it is fundamentally impossible to predict the outcome of wave function collapses/pick your favorite interpretation's verb. CERN doesn't do statistics on their histograms because they don't have good models... That aside, does the difference between a lack of knowledge and a lack of predictability really matter? Either way all you can do is calculate the odds. >Most science has nothing to do with "effect sizes", True, that language is not used everywhere. However if your department deals with signals that are hard to distinguish from background then you have some way of expressing that idea in your vernacular, whatever it is.
    - nonbel 8y ago
      >"In physics, it is fundamentally impossible to predict the outcome of wave function collapses/pick your favorite interpretation's verb." This is one interpretation of quantum mechanics. Plenty of physics is done without any consideration of this. >"CERN doesn't do statistics on their histograms because they don't have good models..." I believe the histograms you are referring to were done on the data, not on the predictions. And afaik they actually do lack a good model of the higgs boson mass, since they never predicted an exact mass. >"However if your department deals with signals that are hard to distinguish from background then you have some way of expressing that idea in your vernacular, whatever it is." Distinguishing signal from background is the same thing, its rudimentary stuff you do when you can't predict exactly what you are looking for. The key difference is that in advanced science you check for deviations from the model you believe is correct. No one at CERN believed the standard model without a higgs boson they used for the background reflected reality.

by nonbel 8y ago

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago

A great deal of older science was done by explaining what was already invented. We seem to have reached a point where rarely does a new invention throw off previous science without it being based on new science that was already in disagreement with old science. Part of it is because over the last century we had so many people with the freedom to invent that the easy inventions have already been invented, at least where the inventions don't pose significant moral/legal implications (such as someone inventing a new drug and getting people to try it without going through the proper channels).

nonbel 8y ago
>"We seem to have reached a point where rarely does a new invention throw off previous science without it being based on new science that was already in disagreement with old science." Or perhaps science has become so institutionalized that any truly novel ideas are suppressed either directly or indirectly (eg the funding for that type of thing is already maxed out). Or maybe the truly novel ideas are getting classified: https://slate.com/technology/2018/05/the-thousands-of-secret-patents-that-the-u-s-government-refuses-to-make-public.html https://slate.com/technology/2018/05/the-thousands-of-secret...

whatshisface 8y ago

Depends on the field. Now that we all realize that you can't actually conclude that you've found something until you've thought about how likely your result was to occur randomly, only a few stragglers and the "lucky ones" where effect sizes are gigantic (you either land on the moon or you don't) can get away without it.

nonbel 8y ago
>"how likely your result was to occur randomly"? What does random mean? It just means you didn't include every possible influence in your mathematical model of whats going on. Instead you used some distribution of "noise" as an approximation to whatever was really going on. Eg, if you know everything about airflow, gravitational, electrical, etc forces on a coin throughout a flip, you can predict which side it will land on with near 100% accuracy. Most of the time we don't have info about that available so use the binomial distribution approximation. >"where effect sizes are gigantic" Most science has nothing to do with "effect sizes", in fact I'd say concern about "effect sizes" is indicative of very rudimentary science. Advanced science is concerned with making precise and accurate predictions.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  >What does random mean? It just means you didn't include every possible influence in your mathematical model of whats going on. In physics, it is fundamentally impossible to predict the outcome of wave function collapses/pick your favorite interpretation's verb. CERN doesn't do statistics on their histograms because they don't have good models... That aside, does the difference between a lack of knowledge and a lack of predictability really matter? Either way all you can do is calculate the odds. >Most science has nothing to do with "effect sizes", True, that language is not used everywhere. However if your department deals with signals that are hard to distinguish from background then you have some way of expressing that idea in your vernacular, whatever it is.
  - nonbel 8y ago
    >"In physics, it is fundamentally impossible to predict the outcome of wave function collapses/pick your favorite interpretation's verb." This is one interpretation of quantum mechanics. Plenty of physics is done without any consideration of this. >"CERN doesn't do statistics on their histograms because they don't have good models..." I believe the histograms you are referring to were done on the data, not on the predictions. And afaik they actually do lack a good model of the higgs boson mass, since they never predicted an exact mass. >"However if your department deals with signals that are hard to distinguish from background then you have some way of expressing that idea in your vernacular, whatever it is." Distinguishing signal from background is the same thing, its rudimentary stuff you do when you can't predict exactly what you are looking for. The key difference is that in advanced science you check for deviations from the model you believe is correct. No one at CERN believed the standard model without a higgs boson they used for the background reflected reality.