Fri Sep 30 19:16:47 EDT 2016

Items of Interest

Various web links I found to be of interest recently.

  • The natural selection of bad science

    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.

  • Why is the scientific replication crisis centered on psychology?

    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.

    Also see: What has happened down here is the winds have changed.
  • Dear "Skeptics," Bash Homeopathy and Bigfoot Less, Mammograms and War More

    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.

  • How Big Sugar Enlisted Harvard Scientists to Influence How We Eat-in 1965

    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.

  • Statins or not? New study aims to help doctors and patients decide

    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.

  • High US health care spending is quite well explained by its high material standard of living

    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:

    1. GDP is a substantially weaker proxy for "wealth" and a substantially weaker predictor of health care expenditures than other available measures.
    2. The US is much wealthier than other countries in these plots in reality.
    3. The arbitrary selection of a handful of countries tends to hide the problems with GDP in this context and, oddly enough, simultaneously downplay the strength of the relationship between wealth and health care spending
    4. Comparing these two quantities with a linear scale tends to substantially overstate the apparent magnitude of the residuals from trend amongst the richer economies when what we're implicitly concerned with is the percentage spent on healthcare.

  • All Prostate Cancer Treatments About Equally Effective, Study Finds

    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.

  • Myths and realities about America's infrastructure spending

    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.

  • Why the gender wage gap explodes when women hit their 30s

    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 (IACAP)

    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?

  • Unpatent

    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.

  • Can Money Buy You Happiness?

    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.


Posted by mjm | Permanent link | Comments
comments powered by Disqus