The method that can prove almost anything - James A. Smith
video description
Date: 2021-08-05
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
emi_mono
Maybe someone can help me. If the null hypothesis is that she can t tell the difference. And if the chance of her randomly getting it right is. 014. And that is what she gets, then wouldn t that mean the null hypothesis holds? In that, she can t tell the difference which is the null hypothesis.
This video seems to be saying that just because the p-value is less than the constant. 05 then she can tell the difference. But I feel like this isn t how math works. Like all you have to do is increase the sample size and all of a sudden you have a p value smaller than the arbitrary constant. 05.
Simplified to:
Suppose she can t tell the difference, hence the null hypothesis.
Null hypothesis Suppose she can t tell the difference
=> p-value=. 014
=>p-value <. 05
=> She can tell the difference
Null hypothesis fails
reply
Maybe someone can help me. If the null hypothesis is that she can t tell the difference. And if the chance of her randomly getting it right is. 014. And that is what she gets, then wouldn t that mean the null hypothesis holds? In that, she can t tell the difference which is the null hypothesis.
This video seems to be saying that just because the p-value is less than the constant. 05 then she can tell the difference. But I feel like this isn t how math works. Like all you have to do is increase the sample size and all of a sudden you have a p value smaller than the arbitrary constant. 05.
Simplified to:
Suppose she can t tell the difference, hence the null hypothesis.
Null hypothesis Suppose she can t tell the difference
=> p-value=. 014
=>p-value <. 05
=> She can tell the difference
Null hypothesis fails
reply
Jason
This was honestly not a very good explanation. Even as someone who somewhat ) gets the concept of p-hacking I was pretty confused throughout most of the video and couldn't follow the logic.
For example I've watched the part at 1: 25 and after several times to try to understand what they're trying to say and I think it's that if she sorts the cups correctly and the p-value is low then there is a good reason to believe that she was actually able to taste the difference. But something so simple is worded so poorly that I had to infer that from my own knowledge and reasoning and I feel like if this was the first video someone watched about this topic it wouldn't be very helpful.
Or maybe I'm just exceptionally slow, that's possible as well.
reply
This was honestly not a very good explanation. Even as someone who somewhat ) gets the concept of p-hacking I was pretty confused throughout most of the video and couldn't follow the logic.
For example I've watched the part at 1: 25 and after several times to try to understand what they're trying to say and I think it's that if she sorts the cups correctly and the p-value is low then there is a good reason to believe that she was actually able to taste the difference. But something so simple is worded so poorly that I had to infer that from my own knowledge and reasoning and I feel like if this was the first video someone watched about this topic it wouldn't be very helpful.
Or maybe I'm just exceptionally slow, that's possible as well.
reply
Fa
But isn't fighting p-hacking only fighting a symptom and not the cause? Many fields suffer under pressure to publish and you're frowned upon by many of you don't manage to publish, also drastically reducing your career chances. The phenomenon of publish it perish is, in my opinion the root of practices like p-hacking, cherry picking or even outright faking data (surprisingly common. To me, this is a not fully wasted approach, but it's seriously misguided, taking a general problem from a small tendril only.
reply
But isn't fighting p-hacking only fighting a symptom and not the cause? Many fields suffer under pressure to publish and you're frowned upon by many of you don't manage to publish, also drastically reducing your career chances. The phenomenon of publish it perish is, in my opinion the root of practices like p-hacking, cherry picking or even outright faking data (surprisingly common. To me, this is a not fully wasted approach, but it's seriously misguided, taking a general problem from a small tendril only.
reply
Zenn
It's almost like a symptom of a politically corrupted peer review process is that theories and experiments that otherwise should have been repeated, were rushed through based on their inclusion of politically correct buzz words or vast amounts of anilingus, and never truly reviewed by peers, more sort of approved by peers. And by peers I mean whoever has spent more money to jockey for the position they hold in the publishing industry.
But hey, that's just silly. Right?
reply
It's almost like a symptom of a politically corrupted peer review process is that theories and experiments that otherwise should have been repeated, were rushed through based on their inclusion of politically correct buzz words or vast amounts of anilingus, and never truly reviewed by peers, more sort of approved by peers. And by peers I mean whoever has spent more money to jockey for the position they hold in the publishing industry.
But hey, that's just silly. Right?
reply
Justin
So they monitored the p value after 10 people and stopped if the value dipped below a certain point. This would mean the tests would likely have results with two separate amounts of people, making the test invalid. There is no control this way. No scientist should accept that kind of data anyway
reply
So they monitored the p value after 10 people and stopped if the value dipped below a certain point. This would mean the tests would likely have results with two separate amounts of people, making the test invalid. There is no control this way. No scientist should accept that kind of data anyway
reply
totalfreedom45
Nothing beats the greatest brainchild of the human brain the scientific method, whose solid yet pliable backbone is the fusing of constructive criticism, rigorous skepticism, a vivid imagination, and above all the consuming curiosity of a child.
reply
Nothing beats the greatest brainchild of the human brain the scientific method, whose solid yet pliable backbone is the fusing of constructive criticism, rigorous skepticism, a vivid imagination, and above all the consuming curiosity of a child.
reply
Youmu
It's pretty awesome and all but this gave me a major headache last year at my Research subject, it's very much just a hypothetical thing and makes it hard to connect into a rational evidence.
reply
It's pretty awesome and all but this gave me a major headache last year at my Research subject, it's very much just a hypothetical thing and makes it hard to connect into a rational evidence.
reply
JAIME
There is no difference between tea + milk and milk + tea! There is a differential in order of mixing them but the end result is identical! English tea!
reply
There is no difference between tea + milk and milk + tea! There is a differential in order of mixing them but the end result is identical! English tea!
reply
BRAINBOX
Ted ed: not everything in maths can be proven
Also Ted ed: method that can provide almost anything
I mean take a side ted
reply
Ted ed: not everything in maths can be proven
Also Ted ed: method that can provide almost anything
I mean take a side ted
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
