= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on Just Lose Hope Already - 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 (76)
And scientific research!
If you define success as "increased knowledge" instead of "new useful applications," then the probability of success for doing scientific research is high (i.e. >75%).
For individual experiments, it is often low, depending on the field.
You increase your knowledge every time you do an experiment. Just as you do every time you ask a question in Guess Who? At the very worst you discover that you asked a stupid question or that your opponent gives unreliable answers.
The relevant probability is p(benefits>costs) not p(benifits>0).
Reading through the context confirms that the relevant probability is p(increased knowledge). I have no specified position on whether the knowledge gained is sufficient to justify the expenditure of effort.
Indeed. I forgot. Oops.
Often it clearly isn't; so don't do that sort of research.
Don't spend $200 million trying to determine if there are a prime number of green rocks in Texas.