SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The field of psychology has recently been embarrassed by failed attempts to repeat the results of classic textbook experiments, and a mounting realization that many papers are the result of commonly accepted statistical shenanigans rather than careful attempts to test hypotheses.
Now Ed Yong writes at The Atlantic that Anna Dreber at the Stockholm School of Economics has created a stock market for scientific publications, where psychologists bet on published studies based on how reproducible they deemed the findings. Based on Robin Hanson's classic paper "Could Gambling Save Science," that proposed a market-based alternative to peer review called "idea futures," the market would allow scientists to formally "stake their reputation", and offer clear incentives to be careful and honest while contributing to a visible, self-consistent consensus on controversial (or routine) scientific questions.
Here's how it works. Each of 92 participants received $100 for buying or selling stocks on 41 studies that were in the process of being replicated. At the start of the trading window, each stock cost $0.50. If the study replicated successfully, they would get $1. If it didn't, they'd get nothing. As time went by, the market prices for the studies rose and fell depending on how much the traders bought or sold. The participants tried to maximize their profits by betting on studies they thought would pan out, and they could see the collective decisions of their peers in real time. The final price of the stocks, at the end of two-week experiment, reflected the probability that each study would be successfully replicated, as determined by the collective actions of the traders. In the end, the markets correctly predicted the outcomes of 71 percent of the replications—a statistically significant, if not mind-blowing score.
"It blew us all away," says Dreber. "There is some wisdom of crowds; people have some intuition about which results are true and which are not," adds Dreber. "Which makes me wonder: What's going on with peer review? If people know which results are really not likely to be real, why are they allowing them to be published?"
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday November 18 2015, @03:32AM
I guess I failed in communicating. I'm saying the Climate Change Industry is not science. They do not behave as scientists should, they do not follow the scientific method and therefore what comes out of Climatology is not science. It is the core of a new age green religion if one is being generous and knowing fraud if one isn't so inclined.
You confirm my observation. I took the prediction of the warmers in the way they were published, as predictions with error bars and a confidence interval; i.e. as if they were doing science. The predicted results did not appear, therefore the models are useless. Perhaps after a careful analysis of why they failed they can try again.... but again it will take some time for the results to be tested and in the interval we should hold their past failure against them, especially since they are making extraordinary claims and demanding an extraordinary, civilization reorganizing response to their unproven theory. I'm the one behaving according to the teachings of the Scientific Method, Rational thought and the general Enlightenment ideas.
Contrast to your pathetic assertions. I'm being unreasonable, I'm "Demanding that climate models be tested by shoveling more and longer periods of data into them until they break down is asking the wrong thing of them." No, I'm comparing their predictions to reality in exactly the way the authors of the models claimed they should be evaluated in the time frames they claimed confidence predicting results for. When reality differed they changed the goalposts and you now come here and have the brass balls to tell me I'm the one making unreasonable demands. If the models lacked actual predictive power they should have said so. Too bad the models were the only argument the warmers had. Look in a dictionary, what is the word for a firmly held opinion not supported by physical evidence? Your sad devotion to that ancient religion doesn't inspire confidence in your reasoning ability.
I don't "believe" in AGW. I accept that there is sufficient evidence and good enough modeling to conclude that AGW is real, and a problem.
Really. Show me a model that isn't outside the error bars. That is how science works. Inside the error bars is good, outside is bad. What other evidence is there? Average global temps have been much higher than they are currently, they have also been a lot lower. Before man discovered fire, before the Industrial Revolution. Further attempts to even study the issue would now be pointless. The historical record has been destroyed (See ClimateGate) nobody working in the area is trustworthy at this point since they all behave more as politicians and priests compared to scientists. None outside the Climatology (and face it, the definition of Climatology is now the study of AGW in a perfect circular reasoning fallacy) industry without a decade of time to devote to a careful study of the literature and acquiring several advanced degrees can possibly sort out the lies from any science lurking in the morass.
Maybe AGW is correct and we will all suffer greatly as a result of people like me saying "A Pox on your house!." Maybe. That is going to be on your team though for lying. We used to teach tales like the Boy Who Cried Wolf for a reason you know.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday November 18 2015, @06:44AM
> Further attempts to even study the issue would now be pointless. The historical record has been destroyed
Ridiculous! The record has not been destroyed. Have you thought about what it would take to destroy all records of past weather? There are many scattered all over the world, with copies. Then there is all the evidence from the environment, things like glacial cores, tree rings, lake bottom sediments, and so on. If records had indeed been all lost or destroyed, we can recreate the data from those sources.