= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on Error detection bias in research - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (36)
There is a true result of the run, stored in the variable resultForX. While I'm developing my code, I don't want to know that true value, because of the surprisingness bias as outlined in the post. I do however want to be able to compare results between test runs. Thus I add a random value, blindValueX, which I do not know; I only know the random seed that produces it. I never print the true result until I've finalised the code and done all my testing for systematic errors.
Okay; I see. Is that a common practice? I'd never heard of it before.
It is, at any rate, quite common with particle physics, although not every analysis uses it. I can't speak to other fields.
Hmm. I wonder if this would make a top-level post, with some example plots and more in-depth description? Practical methods used in science for avoiding bias, 101.