andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2012 andrew_gelman_stats-2012-1449 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Howard Wainer points me to a thoughtful discussion by Moti Nissani on “Psychological, Historical, and Ethical Reflections on the Mendelian Paradox.” The paradox, as Nissani defines it, is that Mendel’s data seem in many cases too good to be true, yet Mendel had a reputation for probity and it seems doubtful that he had a Mark-Hauser-style attitude toward reporting scientific data. Nissani writes: Taken together, the situation seems paradoxical. On the one hand, we have evidence that “the data of most, if not all, of the experiments have been falsified so as to agree closely with Mendel’s expectations.” We also have good reasons to believe that Mendel encountered linkage but failed to report it and that he may have taken the somewhat unusual step of having his scientific records destroyed shortly after his death. On the other hand, everything else we know about him/in addition to his undisputed genius/suggests a man of unimpeachable integrity, fine observational powers, and a pa
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Howard Wainer points me to a thoughtful discussion by Moti Nissani on “Psychological, Historical, and Ethical Reflections on the Mendelian Paradox. [sent-1, score-0.056]
2 ” The paradox, as Nissani defines it, is that Mendel’s data seem in many cases too good to be true, yet Mendel had a reputation for probity and it seems doubtful that he had a Mark-Hauser-style attitude toward reporting scientific data. [sent-2, score-0.253]
3 On the one hand, we have evidence that “the data of most, if not all, of the experiments have been falsified so as to agree closely with Mendel’s expectations. [sent-4, score-0.152]
4 ” We also have good reasons to believe that Mendel encountered linkage but failed to report it and that he may have taken the somewhat unusual step of having his scientific records destroyed shortly after his death. [sent-5, score-0.679]
5 On the other hand, everything else we know about him/in addition to his undisputed genius/suggests a man of unimpeachable integrity, fine observational powers, and a passion for science. [sent-6, score-0.171]
6 In other words, Mendel was as unlikely a candidate for scientific misconduct as can be imagined. [sent-7, score-0.232]
7 To achieve these goals, his work had to be understood. [sent-9, score-0.064]
8 In comparison to his theories, of whose validity he was sure, the data were of no significance whatsoever. [sent-10, score-0.084]
9 His task was not the one faced by the normal scientist addressing a sympathetic and competent audience, but that of a revolutionary who must break through the cognitive paradigms and social prejudices of his audience. [sent-11, score-0.585]
10 If this larger goal could be best achieved by simplification/deliberately omitting some observations from his report and adjusting others to make them more palatable to his audience/could not such a step be justified on moral grounds? [sent-12, score-0.424]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('mendel', 0.661), ('nissani', 0.415), ('falsified', 0.152), ('scientific', 0.095), ('misgivings', 0.094), ('prejudices', 0.094), ('doubtful', 0.089), ('linkage', 0.089), ('originality', 0.089), ('anxious', 0.089), ('undisputed', 0.089), ('entertain', 0.085), ('omitting', 0.085), ('significance', 0.084), ('revolutionary', 0.082), ('passion', 0.082), ('powers', 0.08), ('shortly', 0.08), ('paradigms', 0.08), ('misconduct', 0.08), ('destroyed', 0.08), ('taken', 0.077), ('step', 0.076), ('integrity', 0.076), ('competent', 0.074), ('expanded', 0.073), ('addressing', 0.071), ('defines', 0.069), ('deliberately', 0.069), ('wainer', 0.069), ('faced', 0.068), ('reflections', 0.068), ('hand', 0.067), ('achieved', 0.067), ('replicated', 0.067), ('report', 0.066), ('adjusting', 0.065), ('justified', 0.065), ('howard', 0.064), ('achieve', 0.064), ('compelling', 0.062), ('grounds', 0.062), ('sympathetic', 0.06), ('records', 0.059), ('occasional', 0.059), ('ethical', 0.058), ('unlikely', 0.057), ('unusual', 0.057), ('task', 0.056), ('thoughtful', 0.056)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 1449 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-08-Gregor Mendel’s suspicious data
Introduction: Howard Wainer points me to a thoughtful discussion by Moti Nissani on “Psychological, Historical, and Ethical Reflections on the Mendelian Paradox.” The paradox, as Nissani defines it, is that Mendel’s data seem in many cases too good to be true, yet Mendel had a reputation for probity and it seems doubtful that he had a Mark-Hauser-style attitude toward reporting scientific data. Nissani writes: Taken together, the situation seems paradoxical. On the one hand, we have evidence that “the data of most, if not all, of the experiments have been falsified so as to agree closely with Mendel’s expectations.” We also have good reasons to believe that Mendel encountered linkage but failed to report it and that he may have taken the somewhat unusual step of having his scientific records destroyed shortly after his death. On the other hand, everything else we know about him/in addition to his undisputed genius/suggests a man of unimpeachable integrity, fine observational powers, and a pa
2 0.051002856 1139 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-26-Suggested resolution of the Bem paradox
Introduction: There has been an increasing discussion about the proliferation of flawed research in psychology and medicine, with some landmark events being John Ioannides’s article , “Why most published research findings are false” (according to Google Scholar, cited 973 times since its appearance in 2005), the scandals of Marc Hauser and Diederik Stapel, two leading psychology professors who resigned after disclosures of scientific misconduct, and Daryl Bem’s dubious recent paper on ESP, published to much fanfare in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, one of the top journals in the field. Alongside all this are the plagiarism scandals, which are uninteresting from a scientific context but are relevant in that, in many cases, neither the institutions housing the plagiarists nor the editors and publishers of the plagiarized material seem to care. Perhaps these universities and publishers are more worried about bad publicity (and maybe lawsuits, given that many of the plagiarism cas
3 0.049334876 700 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-06-Suspicious pattern of too-strong replications of medical research
Introduction: Howard Wainer writes in the Statistics Forum: The Chinese scientific literature is rarely read or cited outside of China. But the authors of this work are usually knowledgeable of the non-Chinese literature — at least the A-list journals. And so they too try to replicate the alpha finding. But do they? One would think that they would find the same diminished effect size, but they don’t! Instead they replicate the original result, even larger. Here’s one of the graphs: How did this happen? Full story here .
4 0.048786942 1878 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-31-How to fix the tabloids? Toward replicable social science research
Introduction: This seems to be the topic of the week. Yesterday I posted on the sister blog some further thoughts on those “Psychological Science” papers on menstrual cycles, biceps size, and political attitudes, tied to a horrible press release from the journal Psychological Science hyping the biceps and politics study. Then I was pointed to these suggestions from Richard Lucas and M. Brent Donnellan have on improving the replicability and reproducibility of research published in the Journal of Research in Personality: It goes without saying that editors of scientific journals strive to publish research that is not only theoretically interesting but also methodologically rigorous. The goal is to select papers that advance the field. Accordingly, editors want to publish findings that can be reproduced and replicated by other scientists. Unfortunately, there has been a recent “crisis in confidence” among psychologists about the quality of psychological research (Pashler & Wagenmakers, 2012)
5 0.048078552 2268 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-26-New research journal on observational studies
Introduction: Dylan Small writes: I am starting an observational studies journal that aims to publish papers on all aspects of observational studies, including study protocols for observational studies, methodologies for observational studies, descriptions of data sets for observational studies, software for observational studies and analyses of observational studies. One of the goals of the journal is to promote the planning of observational studies and to publish study plans for observational studies, like study plans are published for major clinical trials. Regular readers will know my suggestion that scientific journals move away from the idea of being unique publishers of new material and move toward a “newsletter” approach, recommending papers from Arxiv, SSRN, etc. So, instead of going through exhausting review and revision processes, the journal editors would read and review recent preprints on observational studies and then, each month or quarter or whatever, produce a list of pap
6 0.047587097 1671 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-13-Preregistration of Studies and Mock Reports
7 0.04627889 1844 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-06-Against optimism about social science
8 0.045612399 957 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-14-Questions about a study of charter schools
9 0.044164043 2149 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-26-Statistical evidence for revised standards
10 0.043320782 1974 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-08-Statistical significance and the dangerous lure of certainty
11 0.043155778 2006 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-03-Evaluating evidence from published research
12 0.042123318 1150 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-02-The inevitable problems with statistical significance and 95% intervals
13 0.042075645 2137 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-17-Replication backlash
14 0.041874658 1149 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-01-Philosophy of Bayesian statistics: my reactions to Cox and Mayo
15 0.041337218 1278 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-23-“Any old map will do” meets “God is in every leaf of every tree”
16 0.041120365 783 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-30-Don’t stop being a statistician once the analysis is done
17 0.041063949 1781 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-29-Another Feller theory
18 0.041049916 2286 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-08-Understanding Simpson’s paradox using a graph
20 0.040147848 2179 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-20-The AAA Tranche of Subprime Science
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.086), (1, -0.015), (2, -0.01), (3, -0.037), (4, -0.02), (5, -0.024), (6, -0.012), (7, 0.005), (8, -0.004), (9, 0.011), (10, -0.021), (11, 0.0), (12, -0.014), (13, -0.015), (14, -0.011), (15, -0.002), (16, 0.008), (17, -0.008), (18, 0.009), (19, -0.008), (20, -0.017), (21, 0.005), (22, -0.025), (23, 0.001), (24, -0.009), (25, 0.005), (26, 0.03), (27, -0.005), (28, -0.01), (29, 0.012), (30, -0.009), (31, 0.012), (32, 0.017), (33, 0.022), (34, 0.02), (35, 0.021), (36, -0.02), (37, -0.011), (38, 0.004), (39, -0.003), (40, 0.001), (41, -0.004), (42, -0.008), (43, 0.019), (44, 0.018), (45, -0.003), (46, -0.011), (47, 0.014), (48, 0.013), (49, -0.011)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.9411791 1449 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-08-Gregor Mendel’s suspicious data
Introduction: Howard Wainer points me to a thoughtful discussion by Moti Nissani on “Psychological, Historical, and Ethical Reflections on the Mendelian Paradox.” The paradox, as Nissani defines it, is that Mendel’s data seem in many cases too good to be true, yet Mendel had a reputation for probity and it seems doubtful that he had a Mark-Hauser-style attitude toward reporting scientific data. Nissani writes: Taken together, the situation seems paradoxical. On the one hand, we have evidence that “the data of most, if not all, of the experiments have been falsified so as to agree closely with Mendel’s expectations.” We also have good reasons to believe that Mendel encountered linkage but failed to report it and that he may have taken the somewhat unusual step of having his scientific records destroyed shortly after his death. On the other hand, everything else we know about him/in addition to his undisputed genius/suggests a man of unimpeachable integrity, fine observational powers, and a pa
2 0.78178847 1171 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-16-“False-positive psychology”
Introduction: Everybody’s talkin bout this paper by Joseph Simmons, Leif Nelson and Uri Simonsohn, who write : Despite empirical psychologists’ nominal endorsement of a low rate of false-positive findings (≤ .05), flexibility in data collection, analysis, and reporting dramatically increases actual false-positive rates. In many cases, a researcher is more likely to falsely find evidence that an effect exists than to correctly find evidence that it does not. We [Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn] present computer simulations and a pair of actual experiments that demonstrate how unacceptably easy it is to accumulate (and report) statistically significant evidence for a false hypothesis. Second, we suggest a simple, low-cost, and straightforwardly effective disclosure-based solution to this problem. The solution involves six concrete requirements for authors and four guidelines for reviewers, all of which impose a minimal burden on the publication process. Whatever you think about these recommend
3 0.78094494 2049 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-03-On house arrest for p-hacking
Introduction: People keep pointing me to this excellent news article by David Brown, about a scientist who was convicted of data manipulation: In all, 330 patients were randomly assigned to get either interferon gamma-1b or placebo injections. Disease progression or death occurred in 46 percent of those on the drug and 52 percent of those on placebo. That was not a significant difference, statistically speaking. When only survival was considered, however, the drug looked better: 10 percent of people getting the drug died, compared with 17 percent of those on placebo. However, that difference wasn’t “statistically significant,” either. Specifically, the so-called P value — a mathematical measure of the strength of the evidence that there’s a true difference between a treatment and placebo — was 0.08. . . . Technically, the study was a bust, although the results leaned toward a benefit from interferon gamma-1b. Was there a group of patients in which the results tipped? Harkonen asked the statis
4 0.7721684 2354 andrew gelman stats-2014-05-30-Mmm, statistical significance . . . Evilicious!
Introduction: Just in case you didn’t check Retraction Watch yet today , Carolyn Johnson reports: The committee painstakingly reconstructed the process of data analysis and determined that Hauser had changed values, causing the result to be statistically significant, an important criterion showing that findings are probably not due to chance. As the man said : His resignation is a serious loss for Harvard, and given the nature of the attack on him, for science generally. As a statistician, I don’t mind if someone is attacked because of cheating with data. Johnson concludes her news article in a pleasantly balanced way: The committee said it carefully considered Hauser’s allegation that people in his laboratory conspired against him, due to academic rivalry and disgruntlement, but did not find evidence to support the idea. The committee also acknowledged that many of Hauser’s overall findings about the cognitive abilities of animals may stand. His results that showed that animals
5 0.77103114 1974 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-08-Statistical significance and the dangerous lure of certainty
Introduction: In a discussion of some of the recent controversy over promiscuously statistically-significant science, Jeff Leek Rafael Irizarry points out there is a tradeoff between stringency and discovery and suggests that raising the bar of statistical significance (for example, to the .01 or .001 level instead of the conventional .05) will reduce the noise level but will also reduce the rate of identification of actual discoveries. I agree. But I should clarify that when I criticize a claim of statistical significance, arguing that the claimed “p less than .05″ could easily occur under the null hypothesis, given that the hypothesis test that is chosen is contingent on the data (see examples here of clothing and menstrual cycle, arm circumference and political attitudes, and ESP), I am not recommending a switch to a more stringent p-value threshold. Rather, I would prefer p-values not to be used as a threshold for publication at all. Here’s my point: The question is not whether
6 0.77075762 1557 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-01-‘Researcher Degrees of Freedom’
7 0.7679919 1671 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-13-Preregistration of Studies and Mock Reports
8 0.76270121 2057 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-10-Chris Chabris is irritated by Malcolm Gladwell
9 0.76061147 1844 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-06-Against optimism about social science
10 0.75423706 1683 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-19-“Confirmation, on the other hand, is not sexy”
11 0.74661493 2179 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-20-The AAA Tranche of Subprime Science
12 0.74241036 2032 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-20-“Six red flags for suspect work”
14 0.73437309 933 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-30-More bad news: The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals
15 0.73386145 908 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-14-Type M errors in the lab
16 0.73350376 1626 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-16-The lamest, grudgingest, non-retraction retraction ever
17 0.73214591 1959 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-28-50 shades of gray: A research story
18 0.7316342 2301 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-22-Ticket to Baaaaarf
topicId topicWeight
[(1, 0.283), (9, 0.022), (13, 0.011), (15, 0.027), (16, 0.08), (21, 0.046), (24, 0.137), (27, 0.031), (55, 0.038), (66, 0.032), (77, 0.011), (86, 0.015), (99, 0.153)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.89020556 1449 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-08-Gregor Mendel’s suspicious data
Introduction: Howard Wainer points me to a thoughtful discussion by Moti Nissani on “Psychological, Historical, and Ethical Reflections on the Mendelian Paradox.” The paradox, as Nissani defines it, is that Mendel’s data seem in many cases too good to be true, yet Mendel had a reputation for probity and it seems doubtful that he had a Mark-Hauser-style attitude toward reporting scientific data. Nissani writes: Taken together, the situation seems paradoxical. On the one hand, we have evidence that “the data of most, if not all, of the experiments have been falsified so as to agree closely with Mendel’s expectations.” We also have good reasons to believe that Mendel encountered linkage but failed to report it and that he may have taken the somewhat unusual step of having his scientific records destroyed shortly after his death. On the other hand, everything else we know about him/in addition to his undisputed genius/suggests a man of unimpeachable integrity, fine observational powers, and a pa
Introduction: We were having so much fun on this thread that I couldn’t resist linking to this news item by Adrian Chen. The good news is that Scott Adams (creater of the Dilbert comic strip) “has a certified genius IQ” and that he “can open jars with [his] bare hands.” He is also “able to lift heavy objects.” Cool! In all seriousness, I knew nothing about this aspect of Adams when I wrote the earlier blog. I was just surprised (and remain surprised) that he was so impressed with Charlie Sheen for being good-looking and being able to remember his lines. At the time I thought it was just a matter of Adams being overly-influenced by his direct experience, along with some satisfaction in separating himself from the general mass of Sheen-haters out there. But now I wonder if something more is going on, that maybe he feels that he and Sheen are on the same side in a culture war. In any case, the ultimate topic of interest here is not Sheen or Adams but rather more general questions of what
3 0.79821646 525 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-19-Thiel update
Introduction: A year or so ago I discussed the reasoning of zillionaire financier Peter Thiel, who seems to believe his own hype and, worse, seems to be able to convince reporters of his infallibility as well. Apparently he “possesses a preternatural ability to spot patterns that others miss.” More recently, Felix Salmon commented on Thiel’s financial misadventures: Peter Thiel’s hedge fund, Clarium Capital, ain’t doing so well. Its assets under management are down 90% from their peak, and total returns from the high point are -65%. Thiel is smart, successful, rich, well-connected, and on top of all that his calls have actually been right . . . None of that, clearly, was enough for Clarium to make money on its trades: the fund was undone by volatility and weakness in risk management. There are a few lessons to learn here. Firstly, just because someone is a Silicon Valley gazillionaire, or any kind of successful entrepreneur for that matter, doesn’t mean they should be trusted with oth
4 0.78974354 973 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-26-Antman again courts controversy
Introduction: Commenter Zbicyclist links to a fun article by Howard French on biologist E. O. Wilson: Wilson announced that his new book may be his last. It is not limited to the discussion of evolutionary biology, but ranges provocatively through the humanities, as well. . . . Generation after generation of students have suffered trying to “puzzle out” what great thinkers like Socrates, Plato, and Descartes had to say on the great questions of man’s nature, Wilson said, but this was of little use, because philosophy has been based on “failed models of the brain.” This reminds me of my recent remarks on the use of crude folk-psychology models as microfoundations for social sciences. The article also discusses Wilson’s recent crusade against selfish-gene-style simplifications of human and animal nature. I’m with Wilson 100% on this one. “Two brothers or eight cousins” is a cute line but it doesn’t seem to come close to describing how species or societies work, and it’s always seemed a
5 0.78007632 581 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-19-“The best living writer of thrillers”
Introduction: On the back of my yellowing pocket book of “The Mask of Dimitros” is the following blurb: ‘Eric Ambler is the best living writer of thrillers.’ — News Chonicle What I’m wondering is, why the qualifier “living”? Did the News Chronicle think there was a better writers of thrillers than Ambler who was no longer alive? I can’t imagine who that could be, considering that Ambler pretty much defined the modern thriller.
6 0.74023145 1154 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-04-“Turn a Boring Bar Graph into a 3D Masterpiece”
7 0.72746599 587 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-24-5 seconds of every #1 pop single
10 0.66454339 2190 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-29-Stupid R Tricks: Random Scope
11 0.66038334 509 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-09-Chartjunk, but in a good cause!
13 0.65877676 440 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-01-In defense of jargon
14 0.6553514 697 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-05-A statistician rereads Bill James
15 0.65160537 541 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-27-Why can’t I be more like Bill James, or, The use of default and default-like models
16 0.63977849 642 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-02-Bill James and the base-rate fallacy
18 0.62725317 272 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-13-Ross Ihaka to R: Drop Dead
19 0.62686253 1019 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-19-Validation of Software for Bayesian Models Using Posterior Quantiles
20 0.62679058 2116 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-28-“Statistics is what people think math is”