You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Elo comments on How to provide a simple example to the requirement of falsifiability in the scientific method to a novice audience? - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: Val 11 April 2016 09:26PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (57)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Elo 13 April 2016 12:28:29AM 1 point [-]

Depending on the time scale of the experiment, you could run a rain-dance trial. (thinking primary school kids)

a rain dance is where you do a special dance to make it rain. spend 5 minutes each day doing the dance, (or not) and evaluating if it rained yesterday, keep a graph of rain+dancing. Run trials for as many weeks as you like.

Comment author: Lumifer 13 April 2016 12:58:37AM 2 points [-]

That could backfire quite spectacularly :-)

Comment author: johnlawrenceaspden 14 April 2016 04:55:11PM 0 points [-]

We should keep running the trials until we can get p<0.05 and prove the hypothesis!

Comment author: Val 19 April 2016 09:17:34PM 0 points [-]

If this would be enough to prove the effectiveness of rain-dancing, then we would develop 30 different styles of rain-dance, test each of them, and with a very high chance we would get p<0.05 on at least one of them.

Sadly, the medical industry is full of such publications, because publishing new ideas is rewarded more than reproducing already published experiments.

Comment author: ChristianKl 18 April 2016 10:20:41AM 0 points [-]

We should keep running the trials until we can get p<0.05 and prove the hypothesis!

Hitting p<0.05 doesn't prove the hypotheis. That's not what the t-test does.

Comment author: TheAltar 13 April 2016 12:39:53PM *  0 points [-]

I came here to mention raindances. You do a raindance and nothing happens. You raindance for 12 more days and suddenly it rains. That must mean if you dance for 13 days straight (or dance until some other sort of requirement you Just So on the spot) it will rain!

If you don't add the idea of falsifiability to accept that raindances might not cause rain when you get negative results, then you will always get the conclusion that some amount of raindancing will cause rain.

Ideally you would add a parameter of audience interaction though if you really want everyone to feel the impact of their failed predictions on a gut level. That's the value of the 2-4-6 game and things like making predictions before learning about scope insensitivity.

Comment author: Elo 13 April 2016 11:40:35PM 0 points [-]

raindance is good for that reason (it has a lot of freedom). You can do statistics on it; you can also (sneakily) keep experimenting for a very long time scale and only stop when you have the right answer.

you can also do things like - dance on days when the weather man says it will rain. just to confuse people

Comment author: johnlawrenceaspden 14 April 2016 04:58:15PM 0 points [-]

My motorcycle once broke down. Messing about with all the usual stuff didn't restart it. Eventually I danced backwards round it waving a spanner and singing about petrol. Started first kick.