ChickCounterfly

Karma: 36

ChickCounterfly 27 Jul 2021 22:48 UTC
11 points
in reply to: Choosing Beggars’s comment on: DeepMind: Generally capable agents emerge from open-ended play
Did evolution need to understand information encoding in the brain before it achieved full GI?

ChickCounterfly 14 Sep 2020 1:05 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Kaj_Sotala’s comment on: What’s Wrong with Social Science and How to Fix It: Reflections After Reading 2578 Papers
I don’t think a high replication rate necessarily implies the experiments were boring. Suppose you do 10 experiments, but they’re all speculative and unlikely to be true: let’s say only one of them is looking at a true effect, BUT your sample sizes are enormous and you have a low significance cutoff. So you detect the one effect and get 9 nulls on the others. When people try to replicate them, they have a 100% success rate on both the positive and the negative results.
The fraction of attempts that will fail due to random chance depends on the power, and replicators tend to go for very high levels of power, so typically you’d have about 5% false negatives or so in the replications.

ChickCounterfly 13 Aug 2020 16:59 UTC
1 point
in reply to: DirectedEvolution’s comment on: Sentence by Sentence: “Why Most Published Research Findings are False”
I don’t think that paper allows any such estimate because it’s based on published results, which are highly biased toward “significant” findings. It’s why, for example, in psychology meta-analyses have effect sizes 3x larger than those of registered replications. For an estimate of the replicability of a field you need something like the Many Labs project (~54% replication, median effect size ¹⁄₄ of the original study).

ChickCounterfly 13 Aug 2020 13:11 UTC
1 point
on: Sentence by Sentence: “Why Most Published Research Findings are False”
There is no real question about whether most published research findings are false or not. We know that’s the case due to replication attempts. Ioannides’ paper isn’t really _about_ plugging in specific numbers, or showing that a priori that must be the case, so I think you’re going at it from a slightly wrong angle.

ChickCounterfly 17 Nov 2018 21:55 UTC
5 points
on: Sam Harris and the Is–Ought Gap
The whole thing hangs on footnote #4, and you don’t seem to understand what realists actually believe. Of course they would dispute it, and not just “some” but most philosophers.

ChickCounterfly 30 Nov 2017 17:48 UTC
1 point
on: Against Modest Epistemology
> If we were fully rational (and fully honest), then we would always eventually reach consensus on questions of fact.
The things you cite right before this sentence say the exact opposite. This is only possible give equal priors, and there’s no reason to assume ratioanl and honest people would have equal priors about...anything.