7 ms·

That’s wrong. Only if the studies are powerful enough and are looking at the right stuff can you make any reasonable conclusions. If the studies are powerful e

That’s wrong. Only if the studies are powerful enough and are looking at the right stuff can you make any reasonable conclusions. If the studies are powerful enough then that absolutely isn’t evidence of absence at all.

Xirdus 2mo ago
Evidence can be strong or weak. Every positive study result is evidence of presence, usually strong evidence. Every negative study result is evidence of absence, usually very weak evidence.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 2mo ago
  And yet, people can be extremely vigilant about a positive correlation when it doesn’t fit their personal agenda, going as far as questioning methodology in even the least pragmatic ways possible; or, become accepting of the absence of evidence as evidence of absence when weak/no correlation is convenient to their own biases.
  - Xirdus 2mo ago
    I'd say it's very sensible to assume absence up front before there's convincing evidence of presence. Sure, personal biases influence our evidence thresholds a lot, and often people demand unfair rigor that cannot be practically met. But the opposite is also true - sometimes people will believe in presence with zero evidence if they like it enough. The latter is far, far more dangerous than the former.
    - rTX5CMRXIfFG 2mo ago
      It’s one thing to believe in presence with zero evidence, and another to _withhold_ judgment when there’s zero evidence. I think you may be conflating the two. Then again, perhaps we are simply two different types of people. I don’t believe that a complex system can be expected to stay the same when you introduce a new factor into it, while you prefer to adjust much later when effects appear or when evidence achieves total infallibility up to the academic level. I am risk-averse, you like taking it; I’d rather prevent, you’d rather cure. Stating that the former is “far, far more dangerous” is just begging the question though.
- zug_zug 2mo ago
  That's not right, a negative study often still can give evidence that something is true, but it just didn't meet the p=.05 threshold.
  - Xirdus 2mo ago
    p<=0.05 is so easy to achieve for actual positive results (just increase sample size) that I don't think it's productive to treat any result with p>0.05 as positive evidence for any purpose other than deciding to rerun the study with a bigger sample size.
    - zug_zug 2mo ago
      That's not true at all, that's a weird generalization that's patently false. Take things like even certain physics propositions (e.g. discovering new particles) -- can take billions of dollars building a new reactor and years of experiments to find a result. Anything medical or psychological also can take this result. If a chemical reduces your iq by 5 points over 10 years, it might not be able to do a study that finds that result on an academic budget.

Xirdus 2mo ago

Evidence can be strong or weak. Every positive study result is evidence of presence, usually strong evidence. Every negative study result is evidence of absence, usually very weak evidence.

rTX5CMRXIfFG 2mo ago
And yet, people can be extremely vigilant about a positive correlation when it doesn’t fit their personal agenda, going as far as questioning methodology in even the least pragmatic ways possible; or, become accepting of the absence of evidence as evidence of absence when weak/no correlation is convenient to their own biases.
- Xirdus 2mo ago
  I'd say it's very sensible to assume absence up front before there's convincing evidence of presence. Sure, personal biases influence our evidence thresholds a lot, and often people demand unfair rigor that cannot be practically met. But the opposite is also true - sometimes people will believe in presence with zero evidence if they like it enough. The latter is far, far more dangerous than the former.
  - rTX5CMRXIfFG 2mo ago
    It’s one thing to believe in presence with zero evidence, and another to _withhold_ judgment when there’s zero evidence. I think you may be conflating the two. Then again, perhaps we are simply two different types of people. I don’t believe that a complex system can be expected to stay the same when you introduce a new factor into it, while you prefer to adjust much later when effects appear or when evidence achieves total infallibility up to the academic level. I am risk-averse, you like taking it; I’d rather prevent, you’d rather cure. Stating that the former is “far, far more dangerous” is just begging the question though.
zug_zug 2mo ago
That's not right, a negative study often still can give evidence that something is true, but it just didn't meet the p=.05 threshold.
- Xirdus 2mo ago
  p<=0.05 is so easy to achieve for actual positive results (just increase sample size) that I don't think it's productive to treat any result with p>0.05 as positive evidence for any purpose other than deciding to rerun the study with a bigger sample size.
  - zug_zug 2mo ago
    That's not true at all, that's a weird generalization that's patently false. Take things like even certain physics propositions (e.g. discovering new particles) -- can take billions of dollars building a new reactor and years of experiments to find a result. Anything medical or psychological also can take this result. If a chemical reduces your iq by 5 points over 10 years, it might not be able to do a study that finds that result on an academic budget.