= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
CarlShulman comments on Using degrees of freedom to change the past for fun and profit - 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 (23)
The "false positive psychology" paper above better meets that description: they're both intentional satires to make a methodological point. Readers should not be confused about the fact that Bem really believes in his conclusions (he has a long history of publishing on this stuff, inconsistent with a Sokal affair), and people like Ben Goertzel and Damien Broderick have vigorously promoted Bem 2011 for the psi, not as a methodological warning.
By principle of death of the author, Bem 2011 is a methodological warning regardless of what Bem says outside the paper.
As I said myself in the post! There is no disagreement on that, but there is an additional factor which I mentioned. The point was that if papers 1, 2, and 3 all display property A, while only 1 and 2 display property B, then 2 is prima facie more similar to 1 than 3.
You don't need to go so far as let the author be dead. Mere applicability theory will accomplish this.