= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gabriel 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)
I don't understand the analogy here. "Parachute use..." takes a question with an obvious answer and complains about the lack of rigorously obtained results pertaining to that question in order to ridicule people who went over the top in demanding rigor.
The only way to connect that with Bem's paper that comes to mind is to claim that Bem was trolling, he believes PSI to be obviously nonexistent and did the study to show that you can get all sorts of obviously wrong but scientific™, legitimate looking results if you experiment cleverly enough. Is that what you mean? Because here I was sure that he had been deadly serious about this stuff.
We, the readers, can take both the parachute paper and the Bem paper as highlighting flaws and limitations of standard methods (in psychology and evidence-based medicine) by using them to derive bogus conclusions (don't use parachutes, and precognition is real). Likewise with the "False Positive Psychology" paper at the top.
But saying that Bem's paper wasn't about parapsychology suggests that he intended it as a warning against flawed methods just like the parachute people did. That looks like defending people who do bad science by saying "it was all a joke, really!"