I would like to read that review but can't access it (either through my Uni or sci-hub). Can you provide the pdf of this review please ?
Thanks for this small litterature review.
To paraphrase Wittgenstein, what you should do if someone talks metaphysics is point out that they haven't given signification to some of their words. Although he says that philosophy should only care about reality (and if it's reality, it's physics, biology, etc and not philosophy), he also says that philosophy is here to clarify our thoughts, and I can't help but agree.
The "kind of crazy" of the postmodern though aren't the minority, they kinda all lack rigor and fail to give signification to their words (but use them nonetheless) - and moreove...
Only few people are interested in studying placebos. However, there are a few papers (Gotzsche is one of the few).
Pain (or nausea) isn't an objective outcome anyway.
Placebo doesn't affect objective outcomes anyway.
See Orac for a bitter "discussion" about this article. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/10/15/in-the-pages-of-nature-a-full-throated-defense-of-integrating-quackery-into-medicine/
Greatly interested, and once I am free of my current activities (in a few weeks) I'll be able to delve in it.
The main idea of WGS is having >all< the SNPs whereas you only get the most common SNPs with the SNP tests.
I'm not really sure how you would use the data from WGS (let's say the genome is assembled too - or maybe that would cost more ?). You would probably use BLAT on your local machine to search for genes with known SNPs. I don't think you could do anything more (finding novel SNPs is out of reach here).
I would guess the main idea would be to be able to check for new SNPs as more and more are found in the literature. However, the literature is not ...
Even Kirsch's paper from 2008 results in that, and it's probably one of the most (or the most) harsh paper on antidepressants.
Science is not that simple, I'm not sure you can draw such conclusions.
There was/is indeed a problem in the reporting of the evidence, that diminished the effect of antidepressant in the literature. Reporting bias is an important and serious matter in science.
That does not mean however that the antidepressant effects got down to a placebo effect. It seems that Kirsch does a lot of hand-waving to put aside the treatment effect. He did the same thing in 2008.
AFAIK the literature still says antidepressants have an effect better than placebo.
How would you test that the FAE leads to in average better judgments ? And better than what ? Eliminating the FAE does not mean only considering external factors either, or you'd have another bias.
Does your increase in social skills made you better at discussing (without boring others) subjects you have an interest in then ?
I wasn't very clear, and probably misleading. Although I'm not an expert, I have "read" Pearl's book a few years ago (Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference, it's available as a pdf) and it really seemed to me that some independence was hard to test, and sometimes was an assumption given the system. It's also true that I haven't read it deeper now that I have a bit more knowledge, and I lack time to do so.
If you have more hindsight about that, I would love to read it.
So ... Should I understand that you're now talking about subjects you have no interest in ?
Or your final point is that you're working on talking about subjects you do have an interest in with more "sociality" (and I don't get why people would take it differently if the subjects are, as I perceive, not common) ?
I agree with gurugeorge response and see Popper the same way.
That said, I do think that although Pearl's work is great, the key word is "in principle" - the methods rely on a number of assumptions that you can't test (like independance) and he also says that the experiment is the only guaranteed way to establish causation (in his talk the art and science of cause and effect). I also may be wrong, as this talk was given in 1996, he might have changed his mind.
Moreover, your "trust your intuitions sometimes" is misleading: it is still no...
Updating priors with evidence. Standing by your beliefs seems to be praised - at least where I live.
I consider Popper as an important thinker, falsification is quite important right now for example. Why do you seem to think he's unimportant ?
More knowledge about bias, which would particularly undermine the unfortunately common and well regarded stance "I only believe what I see". People rely too much on their direct feelings/intuitions without assessing them.
The idea that in order to have an accurate representation of reality, one must have background knowledge in science. Add in a little philosophy (recent philosophy, like Popper).
Also praising the ones who admit their mistakes - that happens too little.
The final idea would be like yours, more Bayesian thinking.
I'm probably too optimistic.
I don't know if that has been pointed out, but it has been done only recently and with moderately bad results ...
It could become a thing if every human on the planet wouldn't go crazy at every mention of "gene editing" (or simply "gene" for that matter, as 80% of americans support the labeling of DNA containing foods ...).
This kind of development would be ... strange. The generations of semi-enhanced humans would indeed feel rather strange.
But I have to point out one thing: genes don't work like that. You don't have one (or few) gene fo...
For this problem, you could make the distribution of the time it takes to get to the train station - you could easily compute the average time it takes for going there, and seeing that by planning to take exactly this amount of time to get there will make you 20 minutes late 50% of the time.
The prep time will only make the "late amount of time" discontinuous, it won't change the probability of being late.
One problem I see is trying to see the signals that would raise the crush probability ... While you would also need to see the signals that would make that probability drop.
The sensible route seems in my opinion to be what signals would they give me if they didn't have a crush on me ?, as you seem to be going the confirmation bias route otherwise.
I'm also one of those for whom the whole "You're overthinking this, don't think, stay natural" simply does not work. I appreciate the idea of such a survey to get a prior though, it seems like a great idea.
The way I see it, causal decision theory simply ignores a part of the problem: that the Predictor is able to "predict".
Evidence should get inside the equation, but not the same way as evidential decision theory: the evidence is what should fuel the hypothesis "The Predictor predicts our choices".
It does not matter if we "think" that our "choice" shouldn't change what's inside the boxes - as the main thing about a prediction is that we aren't actually making any "choice", that "choice" is already ...
Indeed, I stand corrected.
I still find a rather big amount of self-published articles in this list. I find the idea of self-publishing articles to be a bit self-defeating :/
There is no dichotomy here: it is possible to both keep blogs and publish in mainstream journals.
This should be interesting to look at
Same reason why milesmathis (google it, have fun) isn't taken, and shouldn't be taken seriously by the mainstream. Because "playing by the rules" didn't work - you usually end up with an unending amount of crackpottery in what is actually not published: books, blogs, etc.
Not publishing in the mainstream while publishing books and self published articles is the crackpott's artillery, unfortunately.
Think like the mainstream: given the amount of crazy stuff that's present on the internet that couldn't be published because it was, indeed, crazy, should I care about this particular guy that doesn't publish anything but books (or self published articles) ? The unfortunate answer is no.
I agree, most writings are derived from academic works.
That may seem weird, but I don't think "basic clear thinking" should be excluded from academia. Philosophy problems should in my opinion not simply be something we "solve it ourselves", and should enter as formal as it can in academia. I may also simply be unaware of the possibly similar works on this problem too.
That said, I haven't been confused by this problem either, simply got more confused after reading LW and asking what people thought around me - that it was really something that bothered people.
And TDT has been self published ... Why not in mainstream academia ?
MIRI self publishes if I'm not wrong.
Why not publish in mainstream academia ?
Is this simply one statement ? Is Solomonoff complexity additive with multiple statements that must be true at once ? Or is it possible that we can calculate the probability as a chain of Solomonoff complexities, something like:
s1, s2 ... etc are the statements. You need all of them to be true: magic powers, matrix, etc. Are they simply considered as one statement with one Solomonoff complexity K = 2^(x) ? Or K1K2... = 2 ^ (x1 + x2 + ...) ? Or K1^K2^... = 2^(2^(2^...)) ?
And if it's considered as one statement, does simply calculating the probability with...
I think you are overestimating the probabilities there: it is only Pascal's Mugging if you fail to attribute a low enough probability to the mugger's claim. The problem, in my opinion, is not how to deal with tiny probabilities of vast utilities, but how not to attribute too high probabilities to events whose probabilities defy our brain's capacity (like "magic powers from outside the Matrix").
I also feel that, as with Pascal's wager, this situation can be mirrored (and therefore have the expected utilities canceled out) if you simply think "...
Hello. New to the active part of the site, I've been lurking for a while, reading much discussions (and not always agreeing, which might be the reason I'm going active). I've come to the site thanks to HPMOR and the quest towards less bias.
I'm a (soon starting a PhD) student in molecular dynamics in France, skeptic (I guess) and highly critical of many papers (especially in my field). Popper is probably the closest to how I define, although with a few contradictions, the philosophy of what I'm doing.
I'm in the country of wine, cheese and homeopathy, don't forget it :)
Don't send heat underwater, it's a bad idea for everything that lives under there (and for us if we don't want these things going up).
I'm curious though, how would you "send" heat ?