2,865 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2021
    1. Darren Dahly. (2020, October 28). Every so often I am reminded that there is an entire universe of people just casually giving out gazillions of wrong answers on researchgate like it’s no big deal, and it’s wild. [Tweet]. @statsepi. https://twitter.com/statsepi/status/1321432106824859651

  2. Feb 2021
    1. Nick Brown. (2020, November 27). A researcher reads an online news article about a family suicide in another country and writes it up more or less verbatim as a ‘case report’, with a spurious reference to homicide. WTF @wileyglobal? 10.1111/ppc.12686 News article (trans by Google in pic): Https://t.co/uPZeRPN4jg https://t.co/tHW1XQGRyl [Tweet]. @sTeamTraen. https://twitter.com/sTeamTraen/status/1332413218271195137

    1. Brian Nosek. (2020, December 5). We need a #2020goodnews trend. Here’s one: Science keeps getting more open. One indicator from @OSFramework: OSF users posted 9,349 files of data or other research content PER DAY OSF users made 5,633 files public PER DAY EVERY DAY in 2020 #openscience is accelerating [Tweet]. @BrianNosek. https://twitter.com/BrianNosek/status/1335210552252125184

    1. ReconfigBehSci. (2021, January 18). Calling lawyers, historians, and political scientists. A thread on the value of life. I’m still stunned by Lord Sumption, ex-judge on UK’s Supreme Court, now anti-lockdown campaigner, publicly stating that the life of a woman with stage 4 bowel cancer was ‘less valuable’ 1/4 [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1351118909886312449

    1. Psychologists, at least psychologists who write textbooks, not only show no interest in the origin and development of love or affection, but they seem to be unaware of its very existence.

      There is little to no information about love in our textbook, which leads me to believe that love is one emotion that was not historically explored.

    1. Tang, J. W., Bahnfleth, W. P., Bluyssen, P. M., Buonanno, G., Jimenez, J. L., Kurnitski, J., Li, Y., Miller, S., Sekhar, C., Morawska, L., Marr, L. C., Melikov, A. K., Nazaroff, W. W., Nielsen, P. V., Tellier, R., Wargocki, P., & Dancer, S. J. (2021). Dismantling myths on the airborne transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Journal of Hospital Infection, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2020.12.022

    1. the “replication crisis,” the realization that supposed scientific truths are often just plain wrong.

      A book on why science is not what it used to be (and workarounds, but not listed in the opening, but many review beneath).

    1. David Dye. (2021, January 26). So if you work somewhere already like this maybe suggest how to really run a WFH/mobile collaboration uni, and how we re-tool the physical meeting place we then in light of that? Maybe the philosophers already know this?? [Tweet]. @DavidDye9. https://twitter.com/DavidDye9/status/1354176181042556929

    1. Although Haldaneobserved thatthe progress of science had been staggeringly rapid in the last hundred and forty years, he considered it, “quite as likely as not that scientific research may ultimately bestrangled in some such way as this before mankind has learned to control its own evolution.”

      Again considering Hall's Where Is My Flying Car? one could argue that this is exactly what has happened with respect to nuclear power and the original acceleration we were heading for that stalled in the 20th century.

    2. John Burdon Sanderson Haldane was the son of the leading Scottish physiologist, John Scott Haldane, from whom J.B.S. learned “the fundamentals of science,”an education that began very early in his life.Throughout the younger Haldane’s youth, the pair undertook many “legendary and daring physiological experiments,”

      Another father-son pair.

    1. Instead of sharing the data and the code that produces their results, most scientists simply publish a textual description of their research in online publications.

      Science is suffering when scientist compete by uphelding their data.

    1. So the hard and unsolvable problem becomes: how up-to-date do you really need to be?
    2. After considering the value we place, and the tradeoffs we make, when it comes to knowing anything of significance, I think it becomes much easier to understand why cache invalidation is one of the hard problems in computer science

      the crux of the problem is: trade-offs

    3. the 2 hardest problems in computer science are essentially the 2 hardest problems of life in general, as far as humans and information are concerned.
    4. The non-determinism is why cache invalidation — and that other hard problem, naming things — are uniquely and intractably hard problems in computer science. Computers can perfectly solve deterministic problems. But they can’t predict when to invalidate a cache because, ultimately, we, the humans who design and build computational processes, can’t agree on when a cache needs to be invalidated.
    5. Sometimes humorously extended as “cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors.”
    1. There’s only one hard thing in Computer Science: human communication. The most complex part of cache invalidation is figuring out what the heck people mean with the word cache. Once you get that sorted out, the rest is not that complicated; the tools are out there, and they’re pretty good.
    1. Το να πούμε, όπως λέχθηκε απ’ όσους υπέγραψαν την «Έκκληση της Χαϊλδεβέργης» (την οποία, από την πλευρά μου, μάλλον θα ονόμαζα Έκκληση της Νυρεμβέργης), ότι η επιστήμη και μόνο η επιστήμη μπορεί να λύσει όλα τα προβλήματα, είναι αποκαρδιωτικό.
    1. Π.χ. στην έκκληση της Χαϊδελβέργης, που υπέγραψαν 264 επιστήμονες, με αφορμή τη Συνδιάσκεψη για το περιβάλλον στο Ρίο ντε Ζανέιρο το 1993, υπήρχαν ανάμεσά τους και 59 νομπελίστες που απέρριπταν την οικολογία σαν μια «άλογη ιδεολογία που αντιτίθεται στην επιστημονική και βιομηχανική πρόοδο»
    1. The “honest and accurate” science that society expects relies in part on skepticism, the willingness to doubt results and, when possible, to carefully replicate their findings.
    2. But missing from the third edition is skepticism, one of the fundamental elements of doing science.
  3. Jan 2021
    1. The courses span a suite of synthesis methods, including systematic review and systematic mapping, stakeholder engagement in evidence synthesis, and evidence synthesis technology.
    1. Because there is no time left for trial and error and since resources for organising a transformation into a carbon‐neutral world are inherently limited, decision‐making on climate solutions needs to be based on the best available evidence.
    1. Evidence synthesis, which collates, appraises, and summarises results from individual studies across an evidence base and makes them available for policy advice, is particularly well organised in the health sciences; a key role is played here by the global knowledge network Cochrane, founded in 1993 and seated in London. T
    1. Science’s culture of critique discourages groupthink, countermands the effects of human biases, and protects knowledge, not only by rewarding a dispassionate stance toward the subject and institutionalizing organized skepticism but also by fostering competition among scientists able to replicate and hence challenge each other’s work.

      Great aspirations, but how well are they actually achieved in practice/reality?

    1. ReconfigBehSci [@SciBeh] (2020-01-27) new post on Scibeh's meta-science reddit describing the new rubric for peer review of preprints aimed at broadening the pool of potential 'reviewers' so that students could provide evaluations as well! https://reddit.com/r/BehSciMeta/comments/l64y1l/reviewing_peer_review_does_the_process_need_to/ please take a look and provide feedback! Twitter. Retrieved from: https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1354456393877749763

    1. Yesterday was the day that NASA, NOAA, the Hadley Centre and Berkeley Earth delivered their final assessments for temperatures in Dec 2020, and thus their annual summaries. The headline results have received a fair bit of attention in the media (NYT, WaPo, BBC, The Guardian etc.) and the conclusion that 2020 was pretty much tied with 2016 for the warmest year in the instrumental record is robust.

      Links zur Berichterstattung in der englischsprachigen Presse. Der Artikel geht vor allem auf die Sicherheit und Unsicherheit der Angaben zur Durchschnittstemperatur ein.

    1. Weingarten. E., Chen. Q., McAdams., Yi. J., (2016). From Primed Concepts to Action: A Meta-Analysis of the BehavioralEffects of Incidentally Presented Words. Psychological Bulletin 2016 (142) pp 472-497.

    1. However, there is still a gap in research efforts moving from laboratory studies to real-world settings. A small number of research has verified when a physiological response is a reaction to an extrinsic stimulus of the participant’s environment in real-world settings.
    1. Ways will be found to make communities sustainable,

      Ways will also be found to legibilize the deliberately inscrutable. With biomed funding so centralized, forces can be applied to increase the adoption of practices like data sharing and open science.

    2. Scientific work must therefore be spiritually, organizationally, and materially decoupled from the forces of science at scale. The way to achieve this is to give primacy to the organization of small groups and the space for those groups to develop their own norms.

      Which is the opposite of the vision Xi Jinpeng has for science

    3. Progress in a scientific field has never been a function of total effort.

      Which is why Total Factor Productivity is not a good measure.

    4. In our time, machine learning conference attendance and submission rates continue to compound, often outstripping the doubling of Moore's law the discipline relies on to make any forward progress. The quality of results in these and other fields since the vast expansion of their communities has not increased.

      Just wait until you see what publishers have planned for India and China

    5. Communities break down with scale, losing the vitality they had when small and ultimately becoming an undifferentiated mass with an enormous diffusion of focus, to the point that any given group of sufficient scale is not really differentiable from any other.

      Going local, again. Need a solution for scaling the commons.

    1. However, by the time scientific studies make it to the real world, shortcomings and limitations are removed to present palatable (and often wrong) conclusions to a general audience.
  4. Dec 2020
    1. The response of the science settlers to the serious questions that have been raised about their unscientific advocacy has been to demand a more closed system, to hide more data, to urge newspapers to stop printing letters from anyone who questions Global Warming and to even propose the imprisonment of Warming critics.

      Science deniers.

    2. The science of the "Science is settled" crowd isn't an open system of skeptical inquiry, but a closed system of centralized authority funded and controlled by special interests, beholden to political agendas and intolerant of dissent. It has the same relationship to science that the various People's Democracies had to democracy.

      They try to mold our opinions so we are more amenable to their agendas.

    3. But this vision of science as an absolute, a post-modern abstract oracle, is less true than it ever was. Science is a state of uncertainty.

      Science is a process.

    4. It isn't science that gives a thing legitimacy, but the processes of thinking and testing that do.

      The process makes science.

    5. The worship of the expert class is no more credible for PhD's than it is for witch doctors.

      The tyranny of experts.

    6. A scientist who does not utilize the scientific method is as much use as a carpenter who cannot make chairs or a plumber who cannot fix toilets. A science that exists as a fixed absolute, whose premises are not to be questioned, whose data is not to be examined and whose conclusions are not to be debated, is a pile of wood or a leaky toilet. Not the conclusion of a process, but its absence.

      Understanding science is a process.

    1. To the brain, reading computer code is not the same as reading language Neuroscientists find that interpreting code activates a general-purpose brain network, but not language-processing centers.

      Summary of the article:

      • Understanding code is neither done by language centers, nor by mathematical centers of the brain — it’s a whole different ball game.
      • This comes from a researcher who’s studying how different cognitive functions relate to language processing parts of the brain.
      • The study involved young programmers who analysed code while their brains were scanned.
      • People either say that great coders are great at language, or great at maths - neither seems to be true, and there is no single specialized area that lights up from coding.
      • The test activated the multiple demand network in participants’ brains, a wide network for performing mentally challenging tasks.
    1. Stuaert Rtchie [@StuartJRitchie] (2020) This encapsulates the problem nicely. Sure, there’s a paper. But actually read it & what do you find? p-values mostly juuuust under .05 (a red flag) and a sample size that’s FAR less than “25m”. If you think this is in any way compelling evidence, you’ve totally been sold a pup. Twitter. Retrieved from:https://twitter.com/StuartJRitchie/status/1305963050302877697

    1. limpieza de sangre, or purity of blood, developed in thefifteenth century todistinguish between“Old Christians”and those of Jewish, Muslim, orheretical origin, also shaped Iberian ideas of difference between Africansand Europeans.

      limpieza de sangre

    Tags

    Annotators

    1. with the help of new generations of innovators and explorers, these visions of the future can become a reality. As you look through these images of imaginative travel destinations, remember that you can be an architect of the future

      These are really beautiful and inspiring posters.

      Via @chrisaldrich

  5. Nov 2020
    1. The Trump team (and much of the GOP) is working backwards, desperately trying to find something, anything to support the president’s aggrieved feelings, rather than objectively considering the evidence and reacting as warranted.

      What do you expect after they've spent four years doing the same thing day in and day out?

    1. A standard example of a non-personalized nudge involves retirement planning. An employer could (i) leave it to employees to set-up their 401K plans and decide how much to save or (ii) set up the plans by default so that a predetermined amount is saved automatically and allow employees to make adjustments. Saving by default is an architected choice that relies on two facts: first, people often fail to set up a retirement plan, which is a social problem, and second, people tend to stick with default rules. Thus, by choosing option (ii), the choice architect nudges people to start with the better position for them and society.

      The non-personalized nudge

      An employer can choose to let their employee set up their own pensions plan or set them up with a default plan and allow them to change. The second scenario is an "architected choice" that relies on two phenomena:

      1. The fact people often fail to set up a retirement plan
      2. The tendency of people to stick with default rules

      The default plan is a non-personalized nudge which (supposedly) benefits the people as well as society.

      This reminds me of Michael Malice's idea of "the people that need leaders are not able to pick good ones".

  6. Oct 2020
    1. We found that those medications, some of them at least 40 years past their manufacture date, still retained full potency
    1. We have increased the power of gossip-mongers and correspondingly reduced the power of elite institutions of the 20th century, including politicians, mainstream media, and scientists.

      The scaling up of the gossip mechanism on top of ISS has resulted in an increase in power for gossip mongers and a decrease in power of the institutions we relied on before: politicians, mainstream media, scientists.

    1. Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future Paperback – Illustrated, July 12, 2016 by {"isAjaxInProgress_B002RCTIHU":"0","isAjaxComplete_B002RCTIHU":"0"} Martin Ford (Author) › Visit Amazon's Martin Ford Page Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author Are you an author? Learn about Author Central Martin Ford (Author)
    1. Soonish: Ten Emerging Technologies That'll Improve and/or Ruin Everything Hardcover – Illustrated, October 17, 2017 by {"isAjaxComplete_B06XHKDZVZ":"0","isAjaxInProgress_B06XHKDZVZ":"0"} Kelly Weinersmith (Author) › Visit Amazon's Kelly Weinersmith Page Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author Are you an author? Learn about Author Central Kelly Weinersmith (Author), Zach Weinersmith
    1. The Future of Humanity: Our Destiny in the Universe Paperback – Illustrated, April 2, 2019 by {"isAjaxComplete_B000ARDFYQ":"0","isAjaxInProgress_B000ARDFYQ":"0"} Michio Kaku (Author) › Visit Amazon's Michio Kaku Page Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author Are you an author? Learn about Author Central Michio Kaku (Author)
    1. The ideas here make me think that being able to publish on one's own site (and potentially syndicate) and send/receive webmentions may be a very useful tool within open science. We should move toward a model of academic samizdat where researchers can publish their own work for themselves and others. Doing this will give them the credit (and job prospects, etc.) while still allowing movement forward.

    1. Whom exactly were we trusting with our care? Why did we decide to trust them in the first place? Who says that only certain kinds of people are allowed to give us the answers?

      Part of the broader cultural eschewing of science as well? Is this part of what put Trump and celebrities in charge?

    1. First, I will focus in these larger groups because reviews that transcend the boundary between the social and natural sciences are rare, but I believe them to be valuable. One such review is Borgatti et al. (2009), which compares the network science of natural and social sciences arriving at a similar conclusion to the one I arrived.