On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Richard Loosemore <[email protected]> wrote: > Vladimir Nesov wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 3:03 AM, Richard Loosemore <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> The whole point about the paper referenced above is that they are >>> collecting >>> (in a large number of cases) data that is just random noise. >>> >> >> So what? The paper points out a methodological problem that in itself >> has little to do with neuroscience. > > Not correct at all: this *is* neuroscience. I don't understand why you say > that it is not.
>From what I got from the abstract and by skimming the paper, it's a methodological problem in handling data from neuroscience experiments (bad statistics). > >> The field as a whole is hardly >> mortally afflicted with that problem > > I mentioned it because there is a context in which this sits. The context > is that an entire area - which might be called "deriving psychological > conclusions from barin scan data" - is getting massive funding and massive > attention, and yet it is quite arguably in an Emperor's New Clothes state. > In other words, the conclusions being drawn are (for a variety of reasons) > of very dubious quality. > >> If you look at any field large enough, there will be bad science. > > According to the significant number of people who criticize it, this field > appears to be dominated by bad science. This is not just an isolated case. > That's a whole new level of alarm, relevant for anyone trying to learn from neuroscience, but it requires stronger substantiation, mere 50 papers that got confused with statistics don't do it justice. -- Vladimir Nesov [email protected] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
