3 ms·
Disagree. Artificial benchmarks and p hacking for showing good performance in CS are also statistically proven. The best result in geekbench doesn’t mean anythi
by GhettoComputers 5y ago
Disagree. Artificial benchmarks and p hacking for showing good performance in CS are also statistically proven. The best result in geekbench doesn’t mean anything to me.
- SkyMarshal 5y agoBenchmarks and geekbench are not "where theories can be implemented in isolation and shown to either work or not."
- GhettoComputers 5y agoMaybe I don’t understand your point, in psychology for example sterile lab tests are isolated and can be shown to work or not, is it not the same idea here?
- SkyMarshal 5y agoCompSci theories are essentially mathematical proofs. You create a proof of something, then you build it to test it, to make sure your math is actually correct, and that the theory works in implementation. Proof of correctness doesn't rely on having a large cohort of test subjects undergoing an experimental trial of some sort, and then interpreting the results with statistical models, distributions, p-values, etc. I don't know psychology in depth, but if there are similar kinds proofs without requiring statistical analysis of a large experimental cohort, then I don't think Taleb's criticisms are aimed at those either. It's the fundamental problem of knowledge - can truth be known via logic and reason, or via empiricism and observation? The answer to both is, sometimes, but with caveats. Peter Norvig also wrote a good take on all the ways studies using experimental cohorts can go wrong: https://norvig.com/experiment-design.html https://norvig.com/experiment-design.html