4 ms·

> Ten subjects were included in the final analysis. ...in the final analysis ... And how many subjects were not included in the final analysis? 10 is tiny in

by titzer 6y ago

> Ten subjects were included in the final analysis. ...in the final analysis ... And how many subjects were not included in the final analysis? 10 is tiny in any case. This is noise. Ignore. edit: Thankfully the article does actually include enough information to figure this out. 69 subjects screened, 12 took part. Two dropped out, 1 because of scheduling conflicts, 1 because their migraines went away). I also disagree with their experimental methodology. All 10 were given the placebo on the same day, and then two weeks later all 10 were given the psilocybin on the same day. As this was a local study (all participants in the same town), something as simple as the weather changed could explain the difference. I now will double-plus ignore this study.

renewiltord 6y ago
Study Title: Exploratory Controlled Study of the Migraine-Suppressing Effects of Psilocybin It is perfectly reasonable exploratory research. This is, of course, a relatively common epistemological failure for many individuals - the reduction of science to a binary proof/refutation system where a study can only transform your priors into a posterior of zero or one, so I guess it's hard to blame you.
- titzer 6y ago
  > This is, of course, a relatively common epistemological failure for many individuals - the reduction of science to a binary proof/refutation system where a study can only transform your priors into a posterior of zero or one, so I guess it's hard to blame you. Despite the long words in your sentence, this comment amounts to "you foolish binary thinker!" This study has little predictive power and is hardly distinguishable from noise. It has a poor experimental design and is not a good example of how to do research. It deserves a complete do-over with a better design and more subjects.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    > Despite the long words in your sentence, this comment amounts to "you foolish binary thinker!" I chose the words to not direct any criticism towards your person or identity but to a mistake that I also make sometimes. No insult was intended. But, all right, I won't talk about this with you any more.
    - titzer 6y ago
      I appreciate the effort to not directly insult me, but you're still trying to say a pretty snooty thing. You could have just said "Well, Science isn't binary". Which is fine. Instead, you had to go on about how it's so tragic that everyone is wrong about it.
  - dbtc 6y ago
    Maybe it helps prove the case for a bigger and better study?
- fairity 6y ago
  > the reduction of science to a binary proof/refutation system where a study can only transform your priors into a posterior of zero or one So, to put it more simply, you're saying that this study should increase his confidence in psilocybin as a miracle cure for migraines from 0% to what? 0.1%? Whatever that updated degree of confidence is, it's very small. It's safe to ignore this study. OC isn't saying this is unreasonable research. He's saying it's not attention worthy due to low statistical power.
  - setgree 6y ago
    > this study should increase his confidence in psilocybin as a miracle cure for migraines from 0% to what? 0.1%? Had I ever thought about this question before, I would have started out at higher than 0% because I think a lot of migraines have psychiatric/psychological causes, which psilocybin can help with, I think. So maybe an increase from ~10 to ~11 percent confidence in this hypothesis, for me.
  - mudlus 6y ago
    The purpose of science is not prediction. The purpose of science is to find better deeper explanations for reality. The key to the experiment was this: "Initial studies at the time seemed to suggest psychedelic drugs that activate 5-hydroxytryptamine 2A (5-HT2A) receptors could significantly reduce headache burden in chronic migraine sufferers." We still need to do more studies and experiments and change our explanations to test those new explanations. That's all they've said. And here the initial comment was just going to cancel it outright because, probably, it didn't fit their internalized cultural moral landscape. The experiment in question was testing an explanation, there is a HUGE lack of understanding of things that are banned, like Psilocybin--because they are banned. See also: The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch
    - titzer 6y ago
      > The purpose of science is not prediction. The purpose of science is to find better deeper explanations for reality. But prediction is the proof that your explanation (i.e. model) is correct, no?
    - deleted 6y ago

by titzer 6y ago

renewiltord 6y ago

Study Title: Exploratory Controlled Study of the Migraine-Suppressing Effects of Psilocybin It is perfectly reasonable exploratory research. This is, of course, a relatively common epistemological failure for many individuals - the reduction of science to a binary proof/refutation system where a study can only transform your priors into a posterior of zero or one, so I guess it's hard to blame you.

titzer 6y ago
> This is, of course, a relatively common epistemological failure for many individuals - the reduction of science to a binary proof/refutation system where a study can only transform your priors into a posterior of zero or one, so I guess it's hard to blame you. Despite the long words in your sentence, this comment amounts to "you foolish binary thinker!" This study has little predictive power and is hardly distinguishable from noise. It has a poor experimental design and is not a good example of how to do research. It deserves a complete do-over with a better design and more subjects.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  > Despite the long words in your sentence, this comment amounts to "you foolish binary thinker!" I chose the words to not direct any criticism towards your person or identity but to a mistake that I also make sometimes. No insult was intended. But, all right, I won't talk about this with you any more.
  - titzer 6y ago
    I appreciate the effort to not directly insult me, but you're still trying to say a pretty snooty thing. You could have just said "Well, Science isn't binary". Which is fine. Instead, you had to go on about how it's so tragic that everyone is wrong about it.
- dbtc 6y ago
  Maybe it helps prove the case for a bigger and better study?
fairity 6y ago
> the reduction of science to a binary proof/refutation system where a study can only transform your priors into a posterior of zero or one So, to put it more simply, you're saying that this study should increase his confidence in psilocybin as a miracle cure for migraines from 0% to what? 0.1%? Whatever that updated degree of confidence is, it's very small. It's safe to ignore this study. OC isn't saying this is unreasonable research. He's saying it's not attention worthy due to low statistical power.
- setgree 6y ago
  > this study should increase his confidence in psilocybin as a miracle cure for migraines from 0% to what? 0.1%? Had I ever thought about this question before, I would have started out at higher than 0% because I think a lot of migraines have psychiatric/psychological causes, which psilocybin can help with, I think. So maybe an increase from ~10 to ~11 percent confidence in this hypothesis, for me.
- mudlus 6y ago
  The purpose of science is not prediction. The purpose of science is to find better deeper explanations for reality. The key to the experiment was this: "Initial studies at the time seemed to suggest psychedelic drugs that activate 5-hydroxytryptamine 2A (5-HT2A) receptors could significantly reduce headache burden in chronic migraine sufferers." We still need to do more studies and experiments and change our explanations to test those new explanations. That's all they've said. And here the initial comment was just going to cancel it outright because, probably, it didn't fit their internalized cultural moral landscape. The experiment in question was testing an explanation, there is a HUGE lack of understanding of things that are banned, like Psilocybin--because they are banned. See also: The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch
  - titzer 6y ago
    > The purpose of science is not prediction. The purpose of science is to find better deeper explanations for reality. But prediction is the proof that your explanation (i.e. model) is correct, no?
  - deleted 6y ago