"People in glass houses shouldn’t write mean peer review comments."
I had forgotten--or I never knew--even before the eclipse test of the anomaly in Mercury's orbit, Big Al knew he was right.
With that, Einstein knew. He told one friend that on seeing Mercury drop out of his equations that he felt his heart stumble, and another that he was “beside himself with joy.” There was no need to wait for the eclipse—which is why he once said that if the British expedition had come back with the “wrong” numbers “I would feel sorry for the dear Lord. The theory is correct.”
Review of two academic papers by Scott Alexander at State Star Codex.
The message is hardly unique: there are lots of tricks unscrupulous or desperate scientists can use to artificially nudge results to the 5% significance level. The clarity of the presentation is unique. They start by discussing four particular tricks . . . .
"These studies hold extraordinary promise, but they are virtually impossible to achieve under the government’s current regulations."
Vincent DeVita, former director of the National Cancer Institute and the Amy and Joseph Perella Professor of Medicine at Yale Cancer Center and Yale School of Medicine, and Elizabeth DeVita Raeburn, decry our current drug regulations.
But I expect that, as usual, firmly establishing causality will be a bitch.
Ironman at Political Calculations updates his list of resources for "debunking bad science in the media."
Not necessarily a lot new here, but given the source it's quite impressive.
Link courtesy of Michael Greenspan.
Does scientific research drive innovation? Not very often, argues Matt Ridley: Technological evolution has a momentum of its own, and it has little to do with the abstractions of the lab.
Since my wife and I both have brown eyes, but we have a blue-eyed child, this interested me.