- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,788
- Likes
- 37,686
http://nautil.us/issue/74/networks/the-flawed-reasoning-behind-the-replication-crisis
I could point to others articles, but this one I happened to see today.
I've long thought except at the very beginning of testing some area of knowledge that 5% significance (two sigma) leads to too many false positives. In managing manufactured quality 3 sigma seems to give much better control over a process. 2 sigma actually worsened quality when applied to manufacturing in the early 20th century. And some sciences move past 5% being enough fairly soon. Physics being very far past it in requiring 5 sigma results to consider something like the Higgs boson being found. So I've thought audio testing should use 3 sigma myself.
None of that deals with things as a Bayesian statistician would. So I wonder if anyone has any thoughts or knowledge about the idea. I'm no expert, and only understand in crude terms the way you properly apply Bayesian statistics.
I also found this book interesting on cause and effect.
https://www.amazon.com/Book-Why-Sci...k+of+why&qid=1564814480&s=digital-text&sr=1-1
Maybe this is of some interest to @svart-hvitt . It isn't epistemology, but a look at how things can go wrong the way science is done leading to false explanations.
I could point to others articles, but this one I happened to see today.
I've long thought except at the very beginning of testing some area of knowledge that 5% significance (two sigma) leads to too many false positives. In managing manufactured quality 3 sigma seems to give much better control over a process. 2 sigma actually worsened quality when applied to manufacturing in the early 20th century. And some sciences move past 5% being enough fairly soon. Physics being very far past it in requiring 5 sigma results to consider something like the Higgs boson being found. So I've thought audio testing should use 3 sigma myself.
None of that deals with things as a Bayesian statistician would. So I wonder if anyone has any thoughts or knowledge about the idea. I'm no expert, and only understand in crude terms the way you properly apply Bayesian statistics.
I also found this book interesting on cause and effect.
https://www.amazon.com/Book-Why-Sci...k+of+why&qid=1564814480&s=digital-text&sr=1-1
Maybe this is of some interest to @svart-hvitt . It isn't epistemology, but a look at how things can go wrong the way science is done leading to false explanations.