Timeline for Is this really how p-values work? Can a million research papers per year be based on pure randomness?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 22, 2015 at 14:05 | comment | added | shadowtalker | @EnergyNumbers economists still namedrop Popper all the time. | |
| Jul 22, 2015 at 6:49 | comment | added | Stéphane Gourichon | This is all about how to distinguish good signal from noise. @Cort_Ammon raises a good point. I "up" this answer. This is so meta. | |
| Jul 21, 2015 at 21:21 | comment | added | 410 gone | which just justifies what Kuhn said of course, in some ways. Lots of people came after Kuhn. Bas van Fraassen might be your next thing to read. Check in with Lakatos too (earlier but interesting). And Feyerabend. | |
| Jul 21, 2015 at 20:03 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | Its surprising how one can believe Kuhn completely refutes Popperian philosophy, and yet his views are still considered heretical in many encampments. | |
| Jul 21, 2015 at 20:01 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @EnergyNumbers Thank you very much for that link. I was quoting the party line regarding falsifiability of science because it was the only consensus I had seen. As it turns out, I have been arguing Kuhn's position, to the letter, for the last 3 years in wide communities (including scientific) and usually found hostility towards my opinions. You are the first to point out that my ideas were not new! Thanks! | |
| Jul 21, 2015 at 18:32 | comment | added | 410 gone | New? Kuhn refuted Popper decades ago. If you've got no one post Popperian on philosophy.se, then updating it would seem to be a lost cause - just leave it in the 1950s. If you want to update yourself, then any undergraduate primer from the 21st-century on the philosophy of science should get you started. | |
| Jul 21, 2015 at 17:56 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @EnergyNumbers Could you enlighten me on the new way of thinking? The philosophy SE has a very different opinion from yours. If you look at the question history over there, Popperian falsifiability is the defining characteristic of science for the majority of those who spoke their voice. I'd love to learn a newer way of thinking and bring it over there! | |
| Jul 21, 2015 at 17:24 | comment | added | 410 gone | This grasp of the philosophy of science seems to be several decades out of date. Popperian falsifiability is only "popular" in the sense of being a common urban myth about how science happens. | |
| Jul 20, 2015 at 16:07 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @amoeba You do bring up a good point. I certainly wanted to capture the ideal case because I find it is oft lost in the noise. Beyond that, I think the question of SNR in the literature is a valid question, but at least it is one that should be balancable. There's already concepts of good journals vs poor journals, so there's some hints that that balancing act has been underway for some time. | |
| Jul 20, 2015 at 15:22 | comment | added | amoeba | This is very idealistic. Some people are concerned that too many wrong papers can create too low signal-to-noise ratio in the literature and seriously slow down or misguide the scientific process. | |
| Jul 20, 2015 at 15:14 | history | answered | Cort Ammon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |