What I was saying is that there are well-established methods for determining the direction of causation in statistical studies. In your post you expressed as skepticism that this sort of thing is in principle possible. It is, and if you learned statistical methods you would know it.
I'm not saying that mistakes are impossible or even rare, but I am saying that doing this right is also quite possible and not hindered by anything fundamental.
OK, good. Notice that this isn't a kneejerk response, but a reasoned, fact-based dissenting view. The Texas researchers definitely make good points, and the Iowa people are just dicks to say that their study is so "definitive" that the book on the subject is closed.
Now I wish that the discussion on the rest of this thread were conducted on this level, instead of the "If the research doesn't support my preconceptions then it's wrong" crap perfected by geocentrists, cigarette companies and climate change deniers.
You must really hate science if you think that all statistical studies are simply confirmations of research prejudices. My background is in physics, and I can tell you that statistical methods are absolutely key to pretty much all the empirical work we do. I'm reading this thread and asking myself: Why does everyone on Slashdot hate science today? Because the result doesn't fit our preconceptions? I'll tell you something my QM prof once told me: Reality doesn't give a fuck about your preconceptions.
Even in the very shallow linked article, there was an answer: The effect is much weaker than, say, joining a gang or being poor. But it might also be a more controllable variable than either of these.
Duh, aren't you clever! Of course he's thought of that, and if you studied statistical research methods for even a single semester, you'd know how direction of causation is established.
Hey, we're not talking about banning anything. We're talking about research, that's all. And if the lead researcher wants to eventually ban stuff, so what? Regarding the setting of policy, he has just as say as any voter. I'm scared by all the comments here, because I don't want to have anything to do with a group of people who are willing to dismiss scientific results because of their political allegiances. Slashdot should not be a cult. Of all people, we should take research seriously.
Gee, how quick we suddenly are to discount careful scientific research, when it produces conclusions we don't like. I don't think we should let our politics or hopes ever determine what we think of a given research conclusion. Only more science should do that. Sure, we can express our skepticism when we chat, but the real question is whether there are holes in this research. And that's a question that none of us can answer (unless I missed a link to the data itself). Until you can, I hope you keep an open mind.
For people like me who take science very seriously, I find these results disappointing. I imagine that many people here do as well. Let's remember, though, that just because we don't like the results does not make them wrong. I was really hoping that the universe would not end in a boring heat death, but I'm not about to attack cosmologists because the results of their research have dashed my hopes.
We have to examine the data very carefully, trying to look for other explanations for the correlations that were allegedly discovered. If becomes an established conclusion in the field that video games weakly cause violent and antisocial behavior, we might still decide that we don't need to do anything to regulate them beyond "M" labeling. This research result, even if confirmed, doesn't mean that the prudes won and that the state will be prying Crisis from some fat kid's cold dead fingers. We have many choices in how to react to this. But let's not get on our high-horse and yell about how this research must be tainted because we don't like the result. Fundamentalists with no respect for science do that, and we should meet a higher standard.
That device already exists. It's called the "iPhone". It makes calls as well. It just doesn't have that stupid grid on it, so that you can actually read stuff on its screen. I predict this "iPhone" will be popular once more people hear of it.
No fair, you RTFA'd! You've got a lot to learn about Slashdot etiquette. Here's a link to a very thought provoking video in which Brand addresses this and some related topics:
It's one thing to be impressed with a computer-generated composition, but we shouldn't forget that the computer probably composes a thousand awful pieces before it hits on something that's worth playing for someone. There still needs to be a human there to sort through all the trash, and I really doubt that this sorting job will be turned over to software in my lifetime.
Still, the fact that Cameron has script reviewers and patched the plotholes they found already says something good. Oh, if only Lucas had that sort of humility when he was doing the prequels!
I think that some intrepid information preservationists on slashdot are doing their best to preserve a copious volume of our pr0n for future historians! You just know that it what they'll all want to study!
OK, but there is published driver API, and it seems within reach of this knockoff company to write these drivers. I mean, they had to something like this and a lot more in order to put (sort of) functioning software on the phone. Since the clones are made with commodity hardware, many of the drivers would already have been written, no?
To display geotagged photos on Google Maps, Google apparently implemented a flash interface, and this went live only very recently. Is this effect not possible to replicate in some HTML5 way? It's strange that just as Apple is weaning itself off Flash, Google is adding more dependence on Flash, and for an oft-used feature.
Since Android is open source, couldn't they just use it and skin it to mimic the iPhone? That would be free and legal, and potentially make this a pretty cool device.
Whoa, you think that climate science is like astrology? That's nothing but fucked-up denialism. Luckily, climate scientists disagree with you and (unlike astrologers) actually want to put their predictions on record because they have confidence in them. I say we let them.
Since climate science really is a science, it's going to have to make predictions. It's good to put consensus predictions on record and then see how good they are. I have enough faith in climate science to think that they will be quite good. Of course they will have big error bars, but that's unavoidable. Also, it's not uninformative. I think it will be important in 5 years to say: We've got a climate model that's made correct predictions for the last five years, so you should trust that model as a good guide to the future. It's not a perfect argument, but I think it will be more persuasive than what we can say now.
And guess what comes after that? Total zombification. That's right, the inevitable result of good internet access from Google and your astutely-prophecized inevitable tax writeoffs will be cuts in our regulatory systems that will introduce zombifying chemicals in ordinary tapwater, leaving entire cities of people clawing each other in search of brains to devour. Oh, if only we hadn't squandered that tax money! If only our mayors had been able to resist the lure of faster internet! This is the end!
There is another great Bruce, the author Bruce Sterling, who gave a great speech on this topic, really, the best talk on the whole internet as far as I know. Here's a link to the.mp3. The title is "The Singularity: Your Future as a Black Hole." (There's also a video of this on FORA, but the sound really sucks and the excellent q/a session is omitted.)
Slashdot Mirror
What I was saying is that there are well-established methods for determining the direction of causation in statistical studies. In your post you expressed as skepticism that this sort of thing is in principle possible. It is, and if you learned statistical methods you would know it.
I'm not saying that mistakes are impossible or even rare, but I am saying that doing this right is also quite possible and not hindered by anything fundamental.
You don't know much about science.
Now I wish that the discussion on the rest of this thread were conducted on this level, instead of the "If the research doesn't support my preconceptions then it's wrong" crap perfected by geocentrists, cigarette companies and climate change deniers.
You must really hate science if you think that all statistical studies are simply confirmations of research prejudices. My background is in physics, and I can tell you that statistical methods are absolutely key to pretty much all the empirical work we do. I'm reading this thread and asking myself: Why does everyone on Slashdot hate science today? Because the result doesn't fit our preconceptions? I'll tell you something my QM prof once told me: Reality doesn't give a fuck about your preconceptions.
Even in the very shallow linked article, there was an answer: The effect is much weaker than, say, joining a gang or being poor. But it might also be a more controllable variable than either of these.
Duh, aren't you clever! Of course he's thought of that, and if you studied statistical research methods for even a single semester, you'd know how direction of causation is established.
Hey, we're not talking about banning anything. We're talking about research, that's all. And if the lead researcher wants to eventually ban stuff, so what? Regarding the setting of policy, he has just as say as any voter. I'm scared by all the comments here, because I don't want to have anything to do with a group of people who are willing to dismiss scientific results because of their political allegiances. Slashdot should not be a cult. Of all people, we should take research seriously.
Gee, how quick we suddenly are to discount careful scientific research, when it produces conclusions we don't like. I don't think we should let our politics or hopes ever determine what we think of a given research conclusion. Only more science should do that. Sure, we can express our skepticism when we chat, but the real question is whether there are holes in this research. And that's a question that none of us can answer (unless I missed a link to the data itself). Until you can, I hope you keep an open mind.
For people like me who take science very seriously, I find these results disappointing. I imagine that many people here do as well. Let's remember, though, that just because we don't like the results does not make them wrong. I was really hoping that the universe would not end in a boring heat death, but I'm not about to attack cosmologists because the results of their research have dashed my hopes.
We have to examine the data very carefully, trying to look for other explanations for the correlations that were allegedly discovered. If becomes an established conclusion in the field that video games weakly cause violent and antisocial behavior, we might still decide that we don't need to do anything to regulate them beyond "M" labeling. This research result, even if confirmed, doesn't mean that the prudes won and that the state will be prying Crisis from some fat kid's cold dead fingers. We have many choices in how to react to this. But let's not get on our high-horse and yell about how this research must be tainted because we don't like the result. Fundamentalists with no respect for science do that, and we should meet a higher standard.
Wow, it looks like the mods didn't get your joke.
That's exactly what I was thinking.
That device already exists. It's called the "iPhone". It makes calls as well. It just doesn't have that stupid grid on it, so that you can actually read stuff on its screen. I predict this "iPhone" will be popular once more people hear of it.
Thank you for your sanity! I wish I had mod points today.
No fair, you RTFA'd! You've got a lot to learn about Slashdot etiquette. Here's a link to a very thought provoking video in which Brand addresses this and some related topics:
http://fora.tv/2009/10/09/Stewart_Brand_Rethinking_Green
It's one thing to be impressed with a computer-generated composition, but we shouldn't forget that the computer probably composes a thousand awful pieces before it hits on something that's worth playing for someone. There still needs to be a human there to sort through all the trash, and I really doubt that this sorting job will be turned over to software in my lifetime.
Still, the fact that Cameron has script reviewers and patched the plotholes they found already says something good. Oh, if only Lucas had that sort of humility when he was doing the prequels!
I think that some intrepid information preservationists on slashdot are doing their best to preserve a copious volume of our pr0n for future historians! You just know that it what they'll all want to study!
OK, but there is published driver API, and it seems within reach of this knockoff company to write these drivers. I mean, they had to something like this and a lot more in order to put (sort of) functioning software on the phone. Since the clones are made with commodity hardware, many of the drivers would already have been written, no?
To display geotagged photos on Google Maps, Google apparently implemented a flash interface, and this went live only very recently. Is this effect not possible to replicate in some HTML5 way? It's strange that just as Apple is weaning itself off Flash, Google is adding more dependence on Flash, and for an oft-used feature.
Since Android is open source, couldn't they just use it and skin it to mimic the iPhone? That would be free and legal, and potentially make this a pretty cool device.
Whoa, you think that climate science is like astrology? That's nothing but fucked-up denialism. Luckily, climate scientists disagree with you and (unlike astrologers) actually want to put their predictions on record because they have confidence in them. I say we let them.
Since climate science really is a science, it's going to have to make predictions. It's good to put consensus predictions on record and then see how good they are. I have enough faith in climate science to think that they will be quite good. Of course they will have big error bars, but that's unavoidable. Also, it's not uninformative. I think it will be important in 5 years to say: We've got a climate model that's made correct predictions for the last five years, so you should trust that model as a good guide to the future. It's not a perfect argument, but I think it will be more persuasive than what we can say now.
And guess what comes after that? Total zombification. That's right, the inevitable result of good internet access from Google and your astutely-prophecized inevitable tax writeoffs will be cuts in our regulatory systems that will introduce zombifying chemicals in ordinary tapwater, leaving entire cities of people clawing each other in search of brains to devour. Oh, if only we hadn't squandered that tax money! If only our mayors had been able to resist the lure of faster internet! This is the end!
There is another great Bruce, the author Bruce Sterling, who gave a great speech on this topic, really, the best talk on the whole internet as far as I know. Here's a link to the .mp3. The title is "The Singularity: Your Future as a Black Hole." (There's also a video of this on FORA, but the sound really sucks and the excellent q/a session is omitted.)
No, it's more like: 95% of Astrology experts think that our birth signs are correlated with our characters.