4 ms·

If you dredge through enough random data, you will always find a six sigma correlation (or five, or however many sigmas you want), kind of by definition. This i

If you dredge through enough random data, you will always find a six sigma correlation (or five, or however many sigmas you want), kind of by definition. This is why experimenters like particle physicists or gravitational wave astronomers who have petabytes of raw data have to define their criteria in advance, instead of just going to town looking for patterns. I agree with you that if this observation proves to have predictive power, then the way it was found doesn't matter. But right now we're at the less reliable "we looked at all conceivable retroactive combinations of stuff and found this pattern" stage of the process.

magicalhippo 3y ago
It wasn't entirely clear to me, but seems they've taken care of the look-elsewhere effect[1]. If so, that's at least something, no? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look-elsewhere_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look-elsewhere_effect
stainablesteel 3y ago
both are valid strategies, what i think is bad is when groups of people claim that broad sweeping searches are all bogus and that you must have a priori knowledge to be relevant. there should be people dredging through petabytes of cern data like this, exploratory analysis can give you insight into things you didn't know to look for. even if you find things that are bogus you figure out why and learn how to avoid it given the context of the data. to say otherwise becomes a hindrance to progress. plus its not like we have any other way of predicting earthquakes, trying to read the magnetic field to predict events sounds really promising, i'd be willing to give it a shot even if it is bogus, that's just risk assessment.
psychphysic 3y ago
The abstract makes it clear this is part of searching for an earthquake global warning syndrome. So in terms of motivation why the link exists is secondary, if it can for warn significant earthquakes that is all that matters. Besides, the first "scientists" looked at the sky and just stared until patterns appeared. You can't condemn scientists for looking at data. Not everything can be magicked up from first principles in a vacuum. No scientist would claim that falsifiable hypothesis and empirical validation aren't needed. But I don't think any scientist would criticise someone for looking for patterns on a whim and pointing it out to others. A favourite example[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulam_spiral#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulam_spiral#History

magicalhippo 3y ago

It wasn't entirely clear to me, but seems they've taken care of the look-elsewhere effect[1]. If so, that's at least something, no? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look-elsewhere_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look-elsewhere_effect

stainablesteel 3y ago

both are valid strategies, what i think is bad is when groups of people claim that broad sweeping searches are all bogus and that you must have a priori knowledge to be relevant. there should be people dredging through petabytes of cern data like this, exploratory analysis can give you insight into things you didn't know to look for. even if you find things that are bogus you figure out why and learn how to avoid it given the context of the data. to say otherwise becomes a hindrance to progress. plus its not like we have any other way of predicting earthquakes, trying to read the magnetic field to predict events sounds really promising, i'd be willing to give it a shot even if it is bogus, that's just risk assessment.

psychphysic 3y ago

The abstract makes it clear this is part of searching for an earthquake global warning syndrome. So in terms of motivation why the link exists is secondary, if it can for warn significant earthquakes that is all that matters. Besides, the first "scientists" looked at the sky and just stared until patterns appeared. You can't condemn scientists for looking at data. Not everything can be magicked up from first principles in a vacuum. No scientist would claim that falsifiable hypothesis and empirical validation aren't needed. But I don't think any scientist would criticise someone for looking for patterns on a whim and pointing it out to others. A favourite example[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulam_spiral#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulam_spiral#History