scottbot

6 ms·

1.
by scottbot 8y ago
To your first point, look to the other comments, which clarify this beyond what I was aware of. To your second point, yes you are correct; I didn't feel like getting into that was necessary, but it's apparent in the image I put on
2.
by scottbot 8y ago
If you do go on, I'll happily link to it in the article. There's no way I could have done everything, but I could have done a better job nodding to what's missing.
3.
by scottbot 8y ago
I'm an academic historian, you're lucky this wasn't book-length.
4.
by scottbot 8y ago
That's fascinating. I'm the author of the piece, and the material trick and its ramifications is new to me, thank you! This entire subject is not my area of expertise - I'm an historian of 17th century astronomy - but it&#x27
5.
by scottbot 8y ago
Hey, not the OP but the original author here! I was wondering why my server was going crazy; should've known it was HN. If you have issues, the page is already scraped into the Internet Archive: http://web.archive.org/w
6.
by scottbot 11y ago
Carnegie Mellon Univ | Pittsburgh | Full time | Onsite Hiring a "digital humanities developer" to support humanities & social science research. Research background is a plus, and work is mostly interactive data / web stuf
7.
by scottbot 11y ago
If you define science as anything that's falsifiable, then of course anything that isn't, isn't science. And hey, free sciencecountry, that's your prerogative. That said, the philosophers of science who originally discus
8.
by scottbot 11y ago
Pron, as a historian who has come up with quantitative models and resisted the urge to call them predictive, yes, I think that sort of restraint is within humanit(y|ie)'s capable grasp. =]
9.
by scottbot 11y ago
This ain't actually how science works, it's just an idealized account. Special relativity wasn't technically falsifiable compared to its competing theory by Lorentz, because both produced mathematically equivalent predictions
10.
by scottbot 11y ago
This is true, but not entirely relevant. Life-based complex systems often share a propensity for punctuated stability specifically due to their own nature, because of the same circularity inherent in evolution (those that can survive to r
11.
by scottbot 13y ago
My stance is much softer than that, but I should have made it clearer, because similar arguments are often made in anti-frequentist rants. I think that there is an appropriate place for most statistics used (including NHST under the right c
12.
by scottbot 13y ago
I agree, lying is bad regardless! My post isn't anti p-values, it's anti poorly-understood-or-performed-statistics. NHST just happens to be the subject of choice, because it's particularly misunderstood. Anyway, I'm less worried about lying