Behalf Of Claudia Beleites
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 1:46 PM
To: r-help@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R] Waaaayy off topic...Statistical methods, pub bias,
scientific validity
On 01/07/2011 06:13 AM, Spencer Graves wrote:
> A more insidious problem, that may not affect the work of Jona
From: r-help-boun...@r-project.org [mailto:r-help-boun...@r-project.org] On
Behalf Of Spencer Graves
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 9:13 PM
To: Carl Witthoft
Cc: r-help@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R] Waaaayy off topic...Statistical methods, pub bias,
scientific validity
> A more insidious probl
On 01/07/2011 06:13 AM, Spencer Graves wrote:
A more insidious problem, that may not affect the work of Jonah
Lehrer, is political corruption in the way research is funded, with
less public and more private funding of research
Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but the term _political_ corruption
--- On Fri, 1/7/11, Peter Langfelder wrote:
> From: Peter Langfelder
> Subject: Re: [R] Waaaayy off topic...Statistical methods, pub bias,
> scientific validity
> To: "r-help@r-project.org"
> Received: Friday, January 7, 2011, 2:06 AM
> >From a purely statist
: Friday, January 07, 2011 1:01 PM
To: Ravi Varadhan
Cc: 'Mike Marchywka'; r-help@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R] Waaaayy off topic...Statistical methods, pub bias,
scientific validity
I applaud your efforts, Ravi. Regarding "Whose data is it?", I
humbly suggest that re
rchywka
Cc: r-help@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R] Wyy off topic...Statistical methods, pub bias,
scientific validity
I wholeheartedly agree with the trend towards publishing datasets.
One way to do that is as datasets in an R package contributed to CRAN.
Beyond this, there seems
2011, at 11:00,
mailto:r-help-requ...@r-project.org>>
mailto:r-help-requ...@r-project.org>> wrote:
Message: 54
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:56:34 -0800
From: Bert Gunter mailto:gunter.ber...@gene.com>>
To: r-help@r-project.org<mailto:r-help@r-project.org>
Subject: [R] Wyy
: r-help@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R] Waaaayy off topic...Statistical methods, pub bias,
scientific validity
I wholeheartedly agree with the trend towards publishing datasets.
One way to do that is as datasets in an R package contributed to CRAN.
Beyond this, there seems to be an increa
empirical-study-of-data-sharing-by-authors-publishing-in-plos-journals-2/>).
On 1/7/2011 4:08 AM, Mike Marchywka wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 23:06:44 -0800
>> From: peter.langfel...@gmail.com
>> To: r-help@r-project.org
>> Subject: Re: [
> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 23:06:44 -0800
> From: peter.langfel...@gmail.com
> To: r-help@r-project.org
> Subject: Re: [R] Wyy off topic...Statistical methods, pub bias,
> scientific validity
>
> >From a purely statistical and maybe somewhat naive point of vi
>From a purely statistical and maybe somewhat naive point of view,
published p-values should be corrected for the multiple testing that
is effectively happening because of the large number of published
studies. My experience is also that people will often try several
statistical methods to get the
Part of the phenomenon can be explained by the natural censorship
in what is accepted for publication: Stronger results tend to have less
difficulty getting published. Therefore, given that a result is
published, it is evident that the estimated magnitude of the effect is
in average lar
I was very impressed with Lehrer's article. I look forward to seeing what
the rebuttals come up with. The picture that Lehrer paints of the quality
of scientific publications is very dark, and it seems to me, quite
plausible. Note that Lehrer is the author of "Proust Was a Neuroscientist"
which
The next week's New Yorker has some decent rebuttal letters. The case
is hardly as clear-cut as the author would like to believe.
Carl
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide
Folks:
The following has NOTHING (obvious) to do with R. But I believe that
all on this list would find it relevant and, I hope, informative. It
is LONG. I apologize in advance to those who feel I have wasted their
time.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer
Best re
15 matches
Mail list logo
