"Proofs" and "evidence" for causality, in most "science'...

In this month's Scientific American, these issues get discussed. Sadly, the whole article focuses on classical null hypothesis rejection using p values, or "confidence" intervals. Alternatives are discussed, such as Baysian approaches, or a new gimmick, how things don't seem right by analogy with repeated coin tossing. I wish the writer had had more knowledge of research methodology, including various study approaches, and analytical biases. Current approaches merely attempt to rule out errors based on chance. The real meat of the process comes with discussion of results. This would include: Degrees of strength of findings, dose response trends, analyses of biases and efffect modification, appropriateness of study designs, biological/physical/chemical coherence, funding/publication biases,----and how results fit with existing evidence in building stronger theory of any scientifically answerable questions. But it does touch on how hard it is for humans to think outside of existing theoretical boxes. Yet ignores how all this relates to crafting real policy in the real world.
Post Comment

Comments (4)

With a president whose excuse is "I'm not a scientist" (in order to ignore scientific findings) the results of studies in no way relate to policy. Instead, he sides with those paying for his campaign.
Spot on, Raph. It gets worse. The issue of repeatability of results has formally been studied. Seems like the reported effect sizes are off by as much as 60%, and over a third of reported results are otherwise non reproduceable. And as to FDA drug "approval" , only recently has the reporting of negative studies been made mandatory, along with "possitive" results, in favor of licensing a new agent, or apparatus, or procedure. And in the positive ones, the differences betwen study and comtrol arms (placebo) are often way under 20%. Finally, even with this, only 2 positive studies are required for drug approval.
A worthwhile thing for me pursue then, Ive got a big gripe about tax inequity and distortion and lobbying too.
Yep, R. My pet peves as well. Taxes and lobbiests---each one drives the other wastefully.
Post Comment - Let others know what you think about this Blog.
Meet the Author of this Blog
Vierkaesehochonline today!

Vierkaesehoch

Ocean Coast, Maine, USA

Retired, but busy. Years left to enjoy. Handy, curious, multilingual (German, French, Spanish, learning Portuguese). Love animals. Live on a salt water ocean bay just south of Canada. Angling off the rocky beach. Mussels. Watching the oceans reclaim [read more]