back
3 comments
A humorous side note on the excellent linked paper. In the paper Daryl Bem is cited as an authority on clear, simple writing -- the same Daryl Bem responsible for a spectacular bouhaha surrounding his claim that psychological responses in the present are affected by events in the future. Well, we can take comfort that he composed his claim according to the highest literary standards:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/science/11esp.html

That was a very interesting read, thanks. Unless it's already been on HN why not submit it as a main article?
Good suggestion, thanks -- I'll do it.
And the highest scientific standards. His work raises interesting questions concerning the scientific process, what can be experimentally shown in spite of being false, how hard statistics is, even for the experts, etc. It doesn't matter what he believes concerning ESP: no one doubts his integrity, which means the results are mighty interesting.
> And the highest scientific standards.

Nonsense. Bem's work has been rightly criticized for being statistically questionable:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/science/11esp.html

And replication efforts have failed:

http://www.nature.com/news/replication-studies-bad-copy-1.10...

Unless you mean "the highest scientific standards" among psychologists, which is an entirely different claim, since psychology's research standards are notoriously low.

> It doesn't matter what he believes concerning ESP: no one doubts his integrity, which means the results are mighty interesting.

The interest in his results revolves around how such a study could be published in the first place -- and this is not my opinion, but that of his many critics, as shown in the above linked articles.

Statistically questionable, but much better than most non-mathematical publications involving statistics. The problem is: every use of statistics outside of pure mathematics is questionable. Even in experimental physics, where perfect distributions are assumed, when an experimental setup may well lead to a bias. That's the major point the paper raises. Given the standards, I don't doubt for a second that this paper was rightfully published. If it wasn't, the question is: how many other papers weren't? I'd argue more than half of those employing statistics.
Great paper. Easy to understand, enlightening, fun. My favorite part:

"The ‘non- fluent’ version of the excerpt was created by waiting until the departmental printer was low on toner"

Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly

--Duly noted. Thanks for posting.