3 ms·

If you dismiss any positive results in parapsychology as false on reductionist grounds, the whole field becomes a sort of meta-control group for statistics that

by eemax 12y ago

If you dismiss any positive results in parapsychology as false on reductionist grounds, the whole field becomes a sort of meta-control group for statistics that are measuring real things. http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ib/parapsychology_the_control_group_for_science/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ib/parapsychology_the_control_group... Anyways, this article singles our Turing and Kahneman but it seems this is a fairly common pitfall/mistake among, well, almost everyone who uses statistics.

spindritf 12y ago
Exactly, the problem is that parapsychology and other junk (let's be honest...) clears the same bar that we set for social science in general. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-control/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-ou...
- DanBC 12y ago
  ...or a bunch of science in general. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04f9r4k http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04f9r4k
- munificent 12y ago
  > clears the same bar that we set for social science in general. This may be true, but that doesn't mean all social science is equivalent to parapyschology. Lots of it may go much higher than just "clearing the same bar". It would be a pretty bad test that you could pass by scoring a 5% on. And a score of 99% passes that. That doesn't mean the 99% is a bad score.
- pknight 12y ago
  The fact is current day parapsychological research is far more scrutinised than regular research in the social sciences, because of the controversial implications and because there is a large group of people that simply won't entertain the possibility of positive results. The most prominent paranormal researchers employ far more skeptical rigour than other skeptical commentators who dismiss any finding. Because it's called "paranormal" the default is "there must be something wrong with the methods" and so naturally people find fault with the methods. Hypothetically, even if real paranormal effects are surfacing in the data, the nature of the research works against persuading certain circles.
freshhawk 12y ago
I wouldn't just say anyone who uses statistics. It's very common to be perfectly aware of the mistakes previous generations made, have studied them, but not internalize that we are currently making similar ones that will be studied in the future.

by eemax 12y ago

spindritf 12y ago

Exactly, the problem is that parapsychology and other junk (let's be honest...) clears the same bar that we set for social science in general. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-control/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-ou...

DanBC 12y ago
...or a bunch of science in general. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04f9r4k http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04f9r4k
munificent 12y ago
> clears the same bar that we set for social science in general. This may be true, but that doesn't mean all social science is equivalent to parapyschology. Lots of it may go much higher than just "clearing the same bar". It would be a pretty bad test that you could pass by scoring a 5% on. And a score of 99% passes that. That doesn't mean the 99% is a bad score.
pknight 12y ago
The fact is current day parapsychological research is far more scrutinised than regular research in the social sciences, because of the controversial implications and because there is a large group of people that simply won't entertain the possibility of positive results. The most prominent paranormal researchers employ far more skeptical rigour than other skeptical commentators who dismiss any finding. Because it's called "paranormal" the default is "there must be something wrong with the methods" and so naturally people find fault with the methods. Hypothetically, even if real paranormal effects are surfacing in the data, the nature of the research works against persuading certain circles.

freshhawk 12y ago

I wouldn't just say anyone who uses statistics. It's very common to be perfectly aware of the mistakes previous generations made, have studied them, but not internalize that we are currently making similar ones that will be studied in the future.