nonbel

70 ms·

631.
by nonbel 8y ago
Theres tools for this: https://rstudio.github.io/packrat/ https://stackoverflow.com/questions/43018752/version-control...
632.
by nonbel 8y ago
Oh. I never said that was a good thing. Institutionalized peer review as its done today is a relatively new thing, introduced post-WWII. Ie, that statement was descriptive, not normative. https://www.timeshighereducation.com&#x2F
633.
by nonbel 8y ago
The wikipedia one is ok, but really most of that is stuffed into my #1 and it treats the "forming and testing a hypothesis" part too superficially. What did I write that makes you think the two are in conflict? I wrote: "figu
634.
by nonbel 8y ago
Scientific method (basically me just paraphrasing Imre Lakatos): 1) Explore and describe aspects of the world in detail, figure out what situations naturally arise or that can be devised that produce consistent, stable phenomenon. 2) Abduce
635.
by nonbel 8y ago
> "Add reprodicibility criteria for peer review." Passing peer review is something used as a substitute for reproducibility. Just like testing a null hypothesis is a substitute for testing the research hypothesis, and citat
636.
by nonbel 8y ago
This is a really good idea. I bet it is not as hard as some of the "real scientists" claim.
637.
by nonbel 8y ago
They don't try to reproduce all the results in a paper, only a few "important results", more like a spot check. And it is supposed to be much cheaper since the methods have already been figured out...
638.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"If it makes you feel better, you can look around, realize that we're no starving from famine, or dying from minor cuts, or poisoning ourselves with lead, or dying of Polio or Smallpox, and you can try to convince yourself tha
639.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"In fact, many of the initial 50 papers have been confirmed by other groups, as some of the RP:CB’s critics have pointed out." Something is wrong about this. How did these "other groups" get the protocols while this
640.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"would you support a project to go back and replicate electromagnetism experiments performed at the start of the century?" Yes, of course! That is a great idea. Everyone should be doing this experiment in high school or underg
641.
by nonbel 8y ago
You may be interested in this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20700495 They take basic neuronal growth "laws" inferred by Ramon y Cajal just by looking at a crapload of stained neurons in the late
642.
by nonbel 8y ago
Maybe this makes more sense to you: If no one cares whether the authors got it all wrong and "Transcriptional amplification in tumor cells with elevated c-Myc under conditions xyz" should actually be "Transcriptional suppr
643.
by nonbel 8y ago
I don't see whats confused you about my post. If no one cares whether the authors got it all wrong and "Transcriptional amplification in tumor cells with elevated c-Myc under conditions xyz" should actually be "Transcr
644.
by nonbel 8y ago
I'm used to biomed where the "supplements" do exist and are containing more and more of the actual information while the "paper" is becoming more of an "executive summary". Since I find all that info in th
645.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"what have we learned in trying to replicate this study, that we didn't already know?" It sounds like you think it doesn't matter if that result was published vs "Transcriptional amplification in tumor cells wit
646.
by nonbel 8y ago
These sayings like "welcome to the real world", "there's a difference between theory and practice", thought-killers are just excuses for being lazy. Science is hard, really hard. People who think doing a good job is
647.
by nonbel 8y ago
Its not about perfection, its about taking the simple, common sense, and time-tested precautions that gave us the technological marvels we enjoy today. But of course the more independent, even adversarial, the two groups are the better. Li
648.
by nonbel 8y ago
There is no infinite regression, what are you talking about? Its that at least two groups try to measure the same thing under the same conditions (as similar as you can get them).
649.
by nonbel 8y ago
I'd honestly say if the study isn't worth replicating then don't fund it to begin with. Its like funding it enough to get some animals or cells into your lab but then not enough for gloves and pipets and computers.
650.
by nonbel 8y ago
That is exactly the problem. All this stuff is supposed to be in the paper, the paper is not a press release. And everyone understands that its hard to know exactly what info someone else will be missing, so it wont be perfect at first. Tha
651.
by nonbel 8y ago
I was mentioning this in another thread and came across the new info I hadn't heard about yet. Here are some previous articles about this: March 2012: https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a June 2015: http:&#x2F
652.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"the only real thing they have in common are their names." They are names for efforts by the US government to achieve some goal that it never achieves. I don't see what difference the detailed reasons for failure are, I a
653.
Plan to replicate 50 high-impact cancer papers shrinks to just 18(sciencemag.org)
253 points by nonbel 8y ago|191 comments
654.
by nonbel 8y ago
I see now that they had to scale down again to only 36% of the original results: >"A large effort to reproduce high-impact cancer research has scaled down the number of studies it plans to replicate from 50 to 18, Science reported y
655.
by nonbel 8y ago
I have worked in a "wet lab" for years, but not cancer research. The first 3 were largely (of course there is always learning going on) a waste because I didn't understand what statistical significance really meant. I can&#x2
656.
by nonbel 8y ago
>"As far as global poverty is concerned, between 1990-2013 more than a billion people were lifted out of poverty according to the World Bank. I'm sure you can point to local and anecdotal evidence that does not correlate, but t
657.
by nonbel 8y ago
Responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17698877
658.
by nonbel 8y ago
Responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17698877
659.
by nonbel 8y ago
Its just an excuse, you are talking about a field with 10% replication rate, and when they tried to start doing more replications it was too expensive to even figure out what generated the data so they had to drop 25% of the studies before
660.
by nonbel 8y ago
The war on cancer is a total fail in my book. They surrendered when they started calling it "many diseases", meaning there will never be a "cure for cancer" by definition.

More ›