News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:What a debate about p-values shows about science by SapphireSun on Monday October 02, 2017 @05:50PM (#15388258)
Most ideas people have suck. That's sort of the problem of new ideas in particular. When you're working, their failures aren't recognized as some kind of thing you need to tell the world about, you just tried something speculative and it didn't work out. Writing papers sucks (though it can be ego satisfying if you did something really cool), and writing papers about negative results that no one will publish sucks even more (or give you money for). Also, if you do something really dumb, now everyone will know about it.
Re:What a debate about p-values shows about science by simplexion on Monday October 02, 2017 @06:46PM (#15388636)
Yet people still do studies on alternative "medicines" and other stupidity like "wind turbine sickness." That is literally doing something dumb that everyone will hear about.
Re:What a debate about p-values shows about science by vacri on Monday October 02, 2017 @08:52PM (#15389205)
Doing studies on those things you think are stupid is the right thing to do. Counter-intuitive stuff is found all the time in science. Occasionally those alternative medicines get tested and turn out to work, in which case they become regular medicine.

By declaring something as "too dumb to study", you're a priori declaring the result, which is bad science.

Re:What a debate about p-values shows about science by SapphireSun on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @12:31AM (#15390169)
For what it's worth, I'm just describing the ground reality of research, not the utopian vision we should aspire to.