= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern comments on Dealing with the high quantity of scientific error in medicine - 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 (55)
I'm not sure it is misleading; the material is obviously focused on health and psychology as the areas I read most in, but the the results I discuss should apply to many areas: the specific problems of no incentives for replication or less than p<0.05 significance are common to all areas or all areas which use NHST statistics, etc. You may like to think that hard sciences like chemistry are exempt... but I get a lot of these citations off a biochemistry blog!
Papers I read are mainly physics papers, especially particle physics. Not replicated results there are so rare that they often get significant attention in the community (Blog article) or even mainstream media (OPERA neutrino speed measurement).
The usual study&publication process for a new particle detector looks like that:
* identify particles flying through the detector (known for >50 years)
* find the decays of frequent short-living particles (known for >30 years), use them as calibration
* look for other known particles and compare their masses and decays with the existing values * look for known decay modes of those particles and related properties, compare them with existing values and improve them by a significant factor * find new things
Completely new measurements are just a small fraction of the studies - most results confirm earlier experiments and improve the precision.