Various web links I found to be of interest recently.
Poor research design and data analysis encourage false-positive findings. Such poor methods persist despite perennial calls for improvement, suggesting that they result from something more than just misunderstanding. The persistence of poor methods results partly from incentives that favour them, leading to the natural selection of bad science. This dynamic requires no conscious strategizing—no deliberate cheating nor loafing—by scientists, only that publication is a principal factor for career advancement. Some normative methods of analysis have almost certainly been selected to further publication instead of discovery. In order to improve the culture of science, a shift must be made away from correcting misunderstandings and towards rewarding understanding.
The strengths and weaknesses of the field of research psychology
seemed to have combined to
(a) encourage the publication and dissemination of lots of low-quality,
unreplicable research, while
(b) creating the conditions for this problem to be recognized, exposed,
and discussed openly.
...
It makes sense for psychology researchers to be embarrassed that
those papers on power pose, ESP, himmicanes, etc. were published
in their top journals and promoted by leaders in their field. Just
to be clear: I'm not saying there's anything embarrassing or
illegitimate about studying and publishing papers on power pose,
ESP, or himmicanes. Speculation and data exploration are fine with
me; indeed, they're a necessary part of science. My problem with
those papers is that they presented speculation as mature theory,
that they presented data exploration as confirmatory evidence, and
that they were not part of research programmes that could accommodate
criticism. That's bad news for psychology or any other field.
A science journalist (John Horgan) takes a skeptical look at capital-S Skepticism.
I'm a science journalist. I don't celebrate science, I criticize it, because science needs critics more than cheerleaders. I point out gaps between scientific hype and reality. That keeps me busy, because, as you know, most peer-reviewed scientific claims are wrong.
So I'm a skeptic, but with a small S, not capital S. I don't belong to skeptical societies. I don't hang out with people who self-identify as capital-S Skeptics. Or Atheists. Or Rationalists.
Industry-funded research sought to discredit links between sugar and heart disease -- more than half a century ago.
An article by University of California-San Francisco researchers,
published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine, shows how far back such
efforts go: In 1965, the Sugar Research Foundation, the precursor
to today's Sugar Association, paid Harvard scientists to discredit
a link now widely accepted among scientists --that consuming sugar
can raise the risk of cardiovascular disease. Instead, the industry
and the Harvard scientists pinned the blame squarely, and only,
on saturated fat.
...
In a commentary accompanying the JAMA Internal Medicine article,
Marion Nestle, a nutrition and public health professor at New York
University and the author of Food Politics: How the Food Industry
Influences Nutrition and Health, called the findings a "smoking gun"
showing how those who fund research can heavily influence its findings.
A new study reviews harms and benefits of statins treating patients with elevated LDL cholesterol
But one concern among some experts, and opponents, is the eventual
use of statins to treat people who have high cholesterol, but have
not had previous cardiovascular issues and do not have diabetes
of hypertension, meaning more people take them than needed. Fewer
studies have shown that statins reduce the risk of cardiovascular
diseases in healthy people with high cholesterol.
...
Among the 10,000 patients, the researchers found the drug would
cause five cases of myopathy, as well as five to 10 hemorrhagic
strokes -- caused by weak blood vessels bursting -- 50 to 100 new
cases of diabetes, and up to 100 cases of symptomatic adverse events,
such as muscle pain.
These plots and the arguments that usually go with them give the strong impression that US spends about twice as much as it should. However, these are misleading for several reasons, namely:
The first controlled study comparing three different approaches to prostate cancer -- radiation versus surgery versus "watchful waiting" -- shows there is no truly bad choice for most men, experts said Wednesday.
America needs an infrastructure renaissance, but we won't get it
by the federal government simply writing big checks. A far better
model would be for infrastructure to be managed by independent but
focused local public and private entities and funded primarily by
user fees, not federal tax dollars.
...
Infrastructure spending is a form of investment: just as building
a new factory can boost productivity, laying down a new highway or
opening a new airport runway can, at least in principle, generate
future economic returns. But the relevant question is: How do those
future returns compare with the costs? Just because infrastructure
is a form of capital doesn't mean that spending a lot on it is
always smart.
In other words: The wage gap is largest during the years when men
and women start families and raise children. And it shrinks about 18
years later -- right around when adult children are likely moving
out of their parents' house.
...
As I've written about previously, there is ample evidence that
women are still responsible for the majority of child rearing and
housework, even in households where both parents hold full-time
jobs. That additional burden can become a significant obstacle to
career advancement and higher salaries.
The International Association for Computing and Philosophy exists to promote scholarly dialogue and research on all aspects of the computational and informational turn, and on the use of information and communication technologies in the service of philosophy.
Also see a view from Don Berkich:
Should computer scientists and philosophers bother with one another?
On a quest against patent trolls.
Unpatent is a crowdfunding platform to invalidate bad patents.
Unpatent was born with the mission of fixing the innovation framework.
Under the premise that the patent system is utterly outdated and is not serving the people who push humankind forward, we are building tools to empower them again.
The first glich in the system that we are fixing are patent trolls - who are usually law firms that extort people and companies over totally stupid, obvious patents.
It's True to Some Extent. But Chances Are You're not Getting the Most Bang for Your Buck.
In short, this latest research suggests, wealth alone doesn't provide any guarantee of a good life. What matters a lot more than a big income is how people spend it. For instance, giving money away makes people a lot happier than lavishing it on themselves. And when they do spend money on themselves, people are a lot happier when they use it for experiences like travel than for material goods.