Testing the validity of experimental methods is underrated. As in Feynman's Cargo Cult Science essay. http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm … (2/n)
-
-
Show this thread
-
Big effect sizes >> small but statistically significant effects. (3/n)
Show this thread -
Experimental results >> correlational results. (4/n)
Show this thread -
Diverse or weird animal models >> only standard animal models. (5/n)
Show this thread -
Old (pre-1980's) studies get bonus points for credibility. (6/n)
Show this thread -
Simple hypotheses >> conjunctive hypotheses. (e.g. "something in this organ causes this effect" is more likely than "this specific protein causes this effect"). (7/n)
Show this thread -
Evidence from fields like agriculture, where there's a competitive industry that doesn't get much publicity, gets bonus credibility points. (8/n)
Show this thread -
Evidence from multiple different scientific fields, especially if it includes evolutionary biology as well as molecular biology, gets bonus credibility points. (9/n)
Show this thread -
Accidental discoveries, and phenomena that emerge from unbiased/global screens or general-purpose datasets, get bonus credibility points. (10/n)
Show this thread -
Basically all these heuristics are attempts to compensate for motivated cognition and persuasive rhetoric. "I know you're trying to sell me on this claim, so I want evidence that's as independent of your opinion as possible." (11/n)
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.