Many tests on the same rat can be statistically significant! Do X, Y changes in the rat. Undo it, Y changes back. Repeat until it’s statistically certain connection...
We just have no particular reason to expect that it’ll generalize well to others.
This really stands out to me as a physicist because we do things like one rat tests all the time. Well, usually we get a few other ‘rats’, but we rely heavily on the notion that identically prepared matter is… identical. Biology, of course, doesn’t allow that shortcut.
Clinicians sometimes have a cohort of 1 for rare diseases… but of course that’s simply the best they can do under the circumstances.
Many tests on the same rat can be statistically significant! Do X, Y changes in the rat. Undo it, Y changes back. Repeat until it’s statistically certain connection...
True—but it won’t be too convincing if self-experimenting on yourself with your own diet. Science is based on confirmations of experiments by other scientists.
Many tests on the same rat can be statistically significant! Do X, Y changes in the rat. Undo it, Y changes back. Repeat until it’s statistically certain connection...
We just have no particular reason to expect that it’ll generalize well to others.
This really stands out to me as a physicist because we do things like one rat tests all the time. Well, usually we get a few other ‘rats’, but we rely heavily on the notion that identically prepared matter is… identical. Biology, of course, doesn’t allow that shortcut.
Clinicians sometimes have a cohort of 1 for rare diseases… but of course that’s simply the best they can do under the circumstances.
True—but it won’t be too convincing if self-experimenting on yourself with your own diet. Science is based on confirmations of experiments by other scientists.
The rat being the salesman is the more serious issue there, yes.