6 ms·

This is junk. Possibly even a case study exemplar of spurious correlations. Take a small set of units (high false positive rate, inter alia). Take some vaguely

This is junk. Possibly even a case study exemplar of spurious correlations. Take a small set of units (high false positive rate, inter alia). Take some vaguely relevant sounding metrics (entry point for p-hacking). Does a bunch of regressions. Here's the next paper from the group: Distance from equator is predictive of authoritarianism. The more constant daily cycle causes a yearning for rigid routines, predisposing populations to authoritarian rule. If you think I'm merely taking the piss, is it more or less plausible than the proposed causal mechanism here: "Because many disease-causing parasites are invisible, and their actions mysterious, disease control has historically depended substantially on adherence to ritualized behavioral practices that reduced infection risk [9]." Or maybe it's because we've already seen the data our whole lives, know which countries are authoritarian and can select any variable which separates democracies from authoritarian countries and bang, you've got p < 0.05.

jhanschoo 7y ago
Looks like the measures for authoritarianism are taken from various indices for present-day countries. I wonder how this would hold up if we ask historians to rank historical civilizations by "authoritarianism" and then see how this holds up when extrapolated there.
- sm0ss117 7y ago
  This study gets absolutely demolished by the fact that all the major old world democracies were trade/citizen empires in the tropics and sub-tropics; Athens, Rome, Carthage, the Malaccan states, Phoenician states, Swahili city states, etc. While Northern Europe and China were the kinds of totalitarian states that the DPRK would envy.
netcan 7y ago
Whatever the specific case here, I think we're hitting some sort of epistemological point with after-the-fact data analysis. Pseudoscience, basically. I realise that the term is inflammatory but ultimately it comes down to some fundamentals. There's a reason why science as a philosophy places so much value on experimentation that makes predictions and tests them. Testability is a fundamental. Untestable theories are not just wrong, they're nonsensical to science. Take Ostrom's "Simulation hypothesis." Is it pseudoscientific? Depends. Is it testable? Is a simulated universe different in a testable way? A theoretically testable simulation hypothesis makes predictions. One that isn't, doesn't. A simulation which is 100% unknowable cannot be a scientific theory. This doesn't strictly mean that it isn't true, it just means we can't gain scientific knowledge of it. If it's masquerading as a scientific theory, then it is pseudoscience. On the "softer" level, there's a reason why science as a cultural, intellectual institution places so much value on eliminating observer effects. Scientists own bias has always been a major detriment to science. Often in the history of science, generations have had to die off before bias can be shed and science advanced in some area. Basically and practically, the "double blind" designs of experiments are the heart of this. People's objectivity is not to be trusted, not even scientists, not even a little. Economics, sociology and such have shifted from one flavour of pseudoscience to another. Back in Popper's day, they would create big untestable "theories" that explained everything and nothing. Today, they make micro-theories after they analyze the data. I think this may be peaking though. The way machines do "data analysis" is starting to shift the way we think on the margins. Machines make predictions, but not theories. They don't care which way causality runs.
- jeffdavis 7y ago
  "There's a reason why science as a philosophy places so much value on experimentation that makes predictions and tests them." Exactly. There's something that's always bothered me about the "evolution by natural selection is science and everyone who doesn't immediately buy into every aspect of it is an idiot". I personally believe in evolution. It probably makes quite a few good predictions. And I'm sure some experiments have rigor. But a lot of it seems pretty untestable. Add a stress to a population, and it will either die off or evolve to improve fitness. If it dies off, does that contradict the theory because no evolution happened? If it evolves, how much will it evolve? Will the population reach a smaller equilibrium, larger, or the same? Does any change count as "evolution" or is someone quantifying which ones actually improve fitness? What about changes that don't seem obviously connected to fitness, like ridiculous peacock feathers, would those be predicted? Are we coming up with falsifiable predictions before the tests, or just explanations afterward? I'm sure someone with more knowledge of the field has answers to all of these questions. But my guess is that they are more nuanced than the "evolution is science and if you question any aspect you are an idiot".
  - catalogia 7y ago
    > If it dies off, does that contradict the theory because no evolution happened? Isn't some species dying off a pretty major component of what evolution is?
    - jeffdavis 7y ago
      So if the species is wiped out, it's evolution; and if it's not wiped out, it's evolution? Doesn't sound like science to me.
      - catalogia 7y ago
        I'm no biologist, if you want high quality answers you'll have to go find one to ask. But I'm pretty sure you have some wrong ideas about how evolutionary biology works as a field. They observe reality and form theories that fit what they've perceived thusfar. They make predictions based on those theories. Subsequent discoveries can confirm their predictions, or confirmation may remain elusive. It works basically the same way as astrophysics. Biology is traditionally considered a "hard science" by people who subscribe to a 'hard/soft science' worldview.
thedudeabides5 7y ago
Yup, or maybe it's the same "Global North" vs "Global South" thing where the rich countries of the world are predominantly in the temperate north. There's just not that much land in the temperate south. In the middle you have the Caribbean/Northern Latin America, Central Africa and then like Indonesia out in Asia. A lot of warm, wet places with lots of history of malaria, other parasites, and terrible economic development. What's interesting and cuts the other way right now is the small evidence that warmer and wetter makes COVID less infectious/effective. Have yet to see a good reason 'why' that's the case here, but it would be the first time you kinda want to be near the equator in order to avoid an infectious disease.
- kingbirdy 7y ago
  > What's interesting and cuts the other way right now is the small evidence that warmer and wetter makes COVID less infectious/effective. Have yet to see a good reason 'why' that's the case here My understanding is that coronaviruses such as the SARS-CoV family or influenza die more quickly in warmer, more humid conditions. Some sources: http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2014/the-reason-for-the-season-why-flu-strikes-in-winter/ http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2014/the-reason-for-the-se... https://www.hindawi.com/journals/av/2011/734690/ https://www.hindawi.com/journals/av/2011/734690/

jhanschoo 7y ago

Looks like the measures for authoritarianism are taken from various indices for present-day countries. I wonder how this would hold up if we ask historians to rank historical civilizations by "authoritarianism" and then see how this holds up when extrapolated there.

sm0ss117 7y ago
This study gets absolutely demolished by the fact that all the major old world democracies were trade/citizen empires in the tropics and sub-tropics; Athens, Rome, Carthage, the Malaccan states, Phoenician states, Swahili city states, etc. While Northern Europe and China were the kinds of totalitarian states that the DPRK would envy.

netcan 7y ago

Whatever the specific case here, I think we're hitting some sort of epistemological point with after-the-fact data analysis. Pseudoscience, basically. I realise that the term is inflammatory but ultimately it comes down to some fundamentals. There's a reason why science as a philosophy places so much value on experimentation that makes predictions and tests them. Testability is a fundamental. Untestable theories are not just wrong, they're nonsensical to science. Take Ostrom's "Simulation hypothesis." Is it pseudoscientific? Depends. Is it testable? Is a simulated universe different in a testable way? A theoretically testable simulation hypothesis makes predictions. One that isn't, doesn't. A simulation which is 100% unknowable cannot be a scientific theory. This doesn't strictly mean that it isn't true, it just means we can't gain scientific knowledge of it. If it's masquerading as a scientific theory, then it is pseudoscience. On the "softer" level, there's a reason why science as a cultural, intellectual institution places so much value on eliminating observer effects. Scientists own bias has always been a major detriment to science. Often in the history of science, generations have had to die off before bias can be shed and science advanced in some area. Basically and practically, the "double blind" designs of experiments are the heart of this. People's objectivity is not to be trusted, not even scientists, not even a little. Economics, sociology and such have shifted from one flavour of pseudoscience to another. Back in Popper's day, they would create big untestable "theories" that explained everything and nothing. Today, they make micro-theories after they analyze the data. I think this may be peaking though. The way machines do "data analysis" is starting to shift the way we think on the margins. Machines make predictions, but not theories. They don't care which way causality runs.

jeffdavis 7y ago
"There's a reason why science as a philosophy places so much value on experimentation that makes predictions and tests them." Exactly. There's something that's always bothered me about the "evolution by natural selection is science and everyone who doesn't immediately buy into every aspect of it is an idiot". I personally believe in evolution. It probably makes quite a few good predictions. And I'm sure some experiments have rigor. But a lot of it seems pretty untestable. Add a stress to a population, and it will either die off or evolve to improve fitness. If it dies off, does that contradict the theory because no evolution happened? If it evolves, how much will it evolve? Will the population reach a smaller equilibrium, larger, or the same? Does any change count as "evolution" or is someone quantifying which ones actually improve fitness? What about changes that don't seem obviously connected to fitness, like ridiculous peacock feathers, would those be predicted? Are we coming up with falsifiable predictions before the tests, or just explanations afterward? I'm sure someone with more knowledge of the field has answers to all of these questions. But my guess is that they are more nuanced than the "evolution is science and if you question any aspect you are an idiot".
- catalogia 7y ago
  > If it dies off, does that contradict the theory because no evolution happened? Isn't some species dying off a pretty major component of what evolution is?
  - jeffdavis 7y ago
    So if the species is wiped out, it's evolution; and if it's not wiped out, it's evolution? Doesn't sound like science to me.
    - catalogia 7y ago
      I'm no biologist, if you want high quality answers you'll have to go find one to ask. But I'm pretty sure you have some wrong ideas about how evolutionary biology works as a field. They observe reality and form theories that fit what they've perceived thusfar. They make predictions based on those theories. Subsequent discoveries can confirm their predictions, or confirmation may remain elusive. It works basically the same way as astrophysics. Biology is traditionally considered a "hard science" by people who subscribe to a 'hard/soft science' worldview.

thedudeabides5 7y ago

Yup, or maybe it's the same "Global North" vs "Global South" thing where the rich countries of the world are predominantly in the temperate north. There's just not that much land in the temperate south. In the middle you have the Caribbean/Northern Latin America, Central Africa and then like Indonesia out in Asia. A lot of warm, wet places with lots of history of malaria, other parasites, and terrible economic development. What's interesting and cuts the other way right now is the small evidence that warmer and wetter makes COVID less infectious/effective. Have yet to see a good reason 'why' that's the case here, but it would be the first time you kinda want to be near the equator in order to avoid an infectious disease.

kingbirdy 7y ago
> What's interesting and cuts the other way right now is the small evidence that warmer and wetter makes COVID less infectious/effective. Have yet to see a good reason 'why' that's the case here My understanding is that coronaviruses such as the SARS-CoV family or influenza die more quickly in warmer, more humid conditions. Some sources: http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2014/the-reason-for-the-season-why-flu-strikes-in-winter/ http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2014/the-reason-for-the-se... https://www.hindawi.com/journals/av/2011/734690/ https://www.hindawi.com/journals/av/2011/734690/