Is there such a thing as large and small bowel or are these just different words for large and small intestine? A brief googling seems to suggest the latter. The summary mentions a fermentation process in the large bowel that generates energy. My understanding is that the large intestine does little more than adjust the water content. Anyone know whats the truth here?
As Woody Allen said - memory is 90% attention. You're probably not experiencing any memory-loss issues at 58, it has more to do with how you're encoding new memories. On drugs and especially alchohol, the processes of laying down new memories is warped and possibly "shut down" at times (e.g. during a black out). Double checking for your keys is a habit. You probably didn't spend a lot of attention to the fact that you picked them up in the first place. Likewise with your documentaries, you're mostly just enjoying a pass-time and not caring about what it is or applying the content, so, the brain doesn't bother assigning it as much salience (i.e. importance, relevance) as it might to a conversation you had last week.
"...move the study of political theory from social science towards the quantitative analysis offered by Big Data analytics techniques"
1. This would still be "social science" regardless of the techniques used to study the SOCIAL realities of politics.
2. "Big Data" techniques are nothing new to social science. They've pretty much been shown to be dust bowl empiricism time-wasters except in narrow circumstances guided by well-conceived theory.
For many (most?) people, the effect is true as generally understood. For the next largest chunk it's slightly true or true sometimes. For a smaller slice it's true, but in the opposite direction. On average, it looks like the pattern we know.
If the science shows a variation between people and that variation actually exists (which it does), then the science is correct. It's just the world is full of variance. The question is what portion of that variance is due to chance + non-relevant interactions and what is due to a systematic cause. This is what we look for, the systematic relationships that rise above the random noise. Similar to picking out your router's wi-fi signal in a busy city block
Science isn't about WHAT you study. It's about HOW you study
.
Psychology IS a science when the process is properly applied (as it is being done so here by testing the results of initial findings). I'm willing to debate you on this point. Willing to go toe-to-toe? Fair warning, I am an Industrial-Organizational psychologist who teaches research methods and statistics
The physician must not have been very familiar with Psychology. Psychology is no medicine, nor is it like medicine 200 years ago. Further, psychology is far more than the study and treatment of mental illnesses. It is the study of behavior. Proper functioning is a far broader field than mal-functioning. Likewise, the body of psychological scientific literature extends far beyond mental disorders.
He's totally right about chiropractors.
Excellent point for science overall. In recent months, there was talk of how epidemiological science into diet & nutrition was "wrong". Not the case. The science was constantly updating and filling in a more complete understanding of how these things work. It was the popular reporting of the science that had been wrong for so long. The news is black and white. Science is shades of grey with much complexity (although fairly easy to grasp once you start looking).
This one looked at three journals in 2008. I didn't see if it was the full year or not. Probably not. Further, it focused only on single studies. So, not at all surprising. In fact, I'm pretty impressed that almost 40% of the results were replicated. Yay, psychologists!
Well, be careful. There is real, scientific NLP. It is used in a wide variety of clinical and professional (and other) settings. It is a hot area of psychological research.
However, there is also the popular "NLP" concept advanced by "pick-up artists" like Magic and his band of bafoons. That is the nonsense stuff.
The buzzword/terminology issues definitely make it hard to know what to trust these days.
To avoid researcher biases creeping in and affecting the results. Even with double-blind studies, there can be issues of researcher bias. http://centerforopenscience.gi...
This is exactly why what we're seeing here is science at work, not evidence of its failure. We must constantly review the findings of new (and even old) science to fully distinguish what is real from what is false. The world is complex place and it is often the case that things are true in one context and not true in others.
Sad but true. Scientists should really be all about following the data, regardless of whether or not it supports what they would like to believe. Unfortunately, sometimes being able to support ones self and family becomes tied up with supporting a particular theoretical orientation. Even those who try to be pure fall prey to unconscious biases.
Whoops, I confused myself. The null-hypothesis being false means that the alternative hypothesis is supported. The null-hypothesis is that, "there is no difference" or "there is no relationship". If that is false, then we endorse (support) the alternative hypothesis. So, if my study set out to see if blue walls increase creativity, the null hypothesis would be that there is no difference in creativity between people in rooms with blue walls and those in rooms with other colors. If that hypothesis were false, then we should see some difference in the amount of creativity found in blue-walled rooms (whether it be more or less creativity). The explanation of results would depend on the direction and intensity of the analysis results.
Well, that depends on the data. My preferred explanation is whatever the data tell us (assuming proper controls, etc.). I'm assuming here that we don't have fore-knowledge of the null hypothesis being false, but that it is false nonetheless. If the null hypothesis is false, we would hope that the data would support the null-hypothesis. That is, we would hope to find no effect.
If you're asking how do we explain the apparent false-positives, there are many possible explanations. Pure chance is one. The bias of journals to only publish significant findings is another big one. Researcher degrees of freedom (and researcher bias in general) rounds out the big sources, but there are several other confounds that could creep it. This is why reproducability is so important.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there such a thing as large and small bowel or are these just different words for large and small intestine? A brief googling seems to suggest the latter. The summary mentions a fermentation process in the large bowel that generates energy. My understanding is that the large intestine does little more than adjust the water content. Anyone know whats the truth here?
Poetic. Inspiring. Thanks.
Yes.
Post by me. Wasn't logged in. Screw being AC.
As Woody Allen said - memory is 90% attention. You're probably not experiencing any memory-loss issues at 58, it has more to do with how you're encoding new memories. On drugs and especially alchohol, the processes of laying down new memories is warped and possibly "shut down" at times (e.g. during a black out). Double checking for your keys is a habit. You probably didn't spend a lot of attention to the fact that you picked them up in the first place. Likewise with your documentaries, you're mostly just enjoying a pass-time and not caring about what it is or applying the content, so, the brain doesn't bother assigning it as much salience (i.e. importance, relevance) as it might to a conversation you had last week.
"...move the study of political theory from social science towards the quantitative analysis offered by Big Data analytics techniques" 1. This would still be "social science" regardless of the techniques used to study the SOCIAL realities of politics. 2. "Big Data" techniques are nothing new to social science. They've pretty much been shown to be dust bowl empiricism time-wasters except in narrow circumstances guided by well-conceived theory.
Troll or fool?
Not flawed. Just the way the world works.
For many (most?) people, the effect is true as generally understood. For the next largest chunk it's slightly true or true sometimes. For a smaller slice it's true, but in the opposite direction. On average, it looks like the pattern we know.
If the science shows a variation between people and that variation actually exists (which it does), then the science is correct. It's just the world is full of variance. The question is what portion of that variance is due to chance + non-relevant interactions and what is due to a systematic cause. This is what we look for, the systematic relationships that rise above the random noise. Similar to picking out your router's wi-fi signal in a busy city block
.
Yes, DK is true. There is little question about this. Be careful, however, this is an aggregate effect and may not apply to particular individuals.
Agreed. This is the job of proper research design, not statistics.
:). Well, it's definitely come up in DS9.
Brilliant post.
Ugh. You're being a fool.
Science isn't about WHAT you study. It's about HOW you study
.
Psychology IS a science when the process is properly applied (as it is being done so here by testing the results of initial findings). I'm willing to debate you on this point. Willing to go toe-to-toe? Fair warning, I am an Industrial-Organizational psychologist who teaches research methods and statistics
The physician must not have been very familiar with Psychology. Psychology is no medicine, nor is it like medicine 200 years ago. Further, psychology is far more than the study and treatment of mental illnesses. It is the study of behavior. Proper functioning is a far broader field than mal-functioning. Likewise, the body of psychological scientific literature extends far beyond mental disorders. He's totally right about chiropractors.
Excellent point for science overall. In recent months, there was talk of how epidemiological science into diet & nutrition was "wrong". Not the case. The science was constantly updating and filling in a more complete understanding of how these things work. It was the popular reporting of the science that had been wrong for so long. The news is black and white. Science is shades of grey with much complexity (although fairly easy to grasp once you start looking).
This one looked at three journals in 2008. I didn't see if it was the full year or not. Probably not. Further, it focused only on single studies. So, not at all surprising. In fact, I'm pretty impressed that almost 40% of the results were replicated. Yay, psychologists!
Well, be careful. There is real, scientific NLP. It is used in a wide variety of clinical and professional (and other) settings. It is a hot area of psychological research.
However, there is also the popular "NLP" concept advanced by "pick-up artists" like Magic and his band of bafoons. That is the nonsense stuff.
The buzzword/terminology issues definitely make it hard to know what to trust these days.
To avoid researcher biases creeping in and affecting the results. Even with double-blind studies, there can be issues of researcher bias. http://centerforopenscience.gi... This is exactly why what we're seeing here is science at work, not evidence of its failure. We must constantly review the findings of new (and even old) science to fully distinguish what is real from what is false. The world is complex place and it is often the case that things are true in one context and not true in others.
And you clearly don't understand what science is, nor, despite what you may think, do you hang out or listen to people who do.
Let me help you. Science isn't about WHAT you study. It's about HOW you study it.
Don't confuse Psychiatry with Psychology.
Sad but true. Scientists should really be all about following the data, regardless of whether or not it supports what they would like to believe. Unfortunately, sometimes being able to support ones self and family becomes tied up with supporting a particular theoretical orientation. Even those who try to be pure fall prey to unconscious biases.
Whoops, I confused myself. The null-hypothesis being false means that the alternative hypothesis is supported. The null-hypothesis is that, "there is no difference" or "there is no relationship". If that is false, then we endorse (support) the alternative hypothesis. So, if my study set out to see if blue walls increase creativity, the null hypothesis would be that there is no difference in creativity between people in rooms with blue walls and those in rooms with other colors. If that hypothesis were false, then we should see some difference in the amount of creativity found in blue-walled rooms (whether it be more or less creativity). The explanation of results would depend on the direction and intensity of the analysis results.
Well, that depends on the data. My preferred explanation is whatever the data tell us (assuming proper controls, etc.). I'm assuming here that we don't have fore-knowledge of the null hypothesis being false, but that it is false nonetheless. If the null hypothesis is false, we would hope that the data would support the null-hypothesis. That is, we would hope to find no effect.
If you're asking how do we explain the apparent false-positives, there are many possible explanations. Pure chance is one. The bias of journals to only publish significant findings is another big one. Researcher degrees of freedom (and researcher bias in general) rounds out the big sources, but there are several other confounds that could creep it. This is why reproducability is so important.
LOL. That's quite an upgrade for that quack.
You "Know" that. I'm sorry for you.