On 01/20/2015 10:20 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 09:18 -0700, Roger Critchlow wrote:
http://pnis.co/vol2/s1.html Neural correlates of people waiting to
get into Heaven
They joke that "The eventual results of this experiment (which are not
yet available) have been accepted “in principle”, and will be published
when made available by the author(s)."
It seems to me there is a fixation on positive results. To get funding,
it is usually necessary to pre-register a set of questions, at least, if
not the scientific methods. So wouldn't it be better if funding requests
and submission of academic papers were the same process, and double
blind?
The problem with intricate jokes is they rely on an intricate audience.
The joke would be far funnier if they'd included a poes-law-like
description of the aims and methods ... but fewer people would be
willing to play the game. So, although it would be funnier, fewer
people would find it funny ... humor economics?
I feel the same way about Charlie Hebdo and the opinions of Sam Harris
(http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/sam-harris-liberals-like-greenwald-aslan-support-thuggish-ultimatum-of-islamic-terrorists/).
--
⇔ glen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
