Comments for Scientific Clearing House

Comment on Brain activity map by Marie

Marie — Tue, 21 May 2013 18:58:13 +0000

Keeping these plants in flowerbeds or flower boxes near your home will attract tachnid flies,
who will then help control the population of earwigs. While some maintenance can be done by a
homeowner, a good plumber or HVAC technician should be consulted to make sure that your heating system will run
efficiently during the next winter season and for
years to come. One popular bathroom fixture today that many interior decorators and home owners use is
a shower bath.

Comment on Most of neuroscience is wrong by Carson Chow

Carson Chow — Tue, 21 May 2013 14:43:50 +0000

@ishi I may not have the skills but I do have the data (although we haven’t analyzed it yet). Understanding the genetic basis of cognitive disorders is a big theme in my lab.

These were warm up papers:
http://sciencehouse.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/new-paper-on-autism/
http://sciencehouse.wordpress.com/category/genetics/

@daniel I wouldn’t outright dismiss any data but I would sure want to know what the biological mechanism was for that effect before I prescribed extra vitamin C to everyone.

Comment on Most of neuroscience is wrong by ishi

ishi — Tue, 21 May 2013 08:22:29 +0000

many are ‘highly heritable’. (kety, plomin, gimme a break—i guess u got stuart newman .(NYU) and jay joseph, but that aint a vacation ). what does that mean? h**2(bethesda md.)=2(r(mz)-r(dz)). (you can allus check ned block head or wikipeida for sic).

it appears you dont have data or skills to deal with that simple question so stick with patn integrals.

well, i’ll just go back to the minority view p=np. all this stuff is on line.

Comment on Most of neuroscience is wrong by Daniel Lemire

Daniel Lemire — Tue, 21 May 2013 04:30:01 +0000

When done right, there is nothing wrong with small samples.

It is better to test many things quickly and cheaply, maybe repeatedly… than do fewer but longer experiments. Once you have something promising, you can do more extensive experiments.

The problem is the curse of statistical significance. People *need* statistical significance so they manufacture it. This is what throws off the whole thing.

“If you really wanted to find what causes a given disease then you probably want to find something that is associated with all cases, not just in a small percentage of them.”

True, but suppose that taking vitamin C helped 1% of all cancer patients (note: it probably does not). Would you dismiss it? You shouldn’t dismiss it.

Comment on Most of neuroscience is wrong by Carson Chow

Carson Chow — Tue, 21 May 2013 00:33:38 +0000

I don’t have the numbers for ADHD but many cognitive disorders like autism and schizophrenia are highly heritable, which can be determined using the old fashion methods of comparing penetrance between family members. Figuring out your gauge transformation is probably an NP hard problem.

Comment on Most of neuroscience is wrong by ishi

ishi — Mon, 20 May 2013 18:06:13 +0000

i was just reading some article saying ‘now we know ADHD is genetic’; because they compared like 3000 young people without ADHD with about 300 who did, and found that one part of the genome which has ‘repeated elements’ (i forget the term) was found in 14% of the ADHD youth versus 7% of the others.
apart from not appearing to show they have found a complete genetic characterization of the disease, i wonder (and wouldnt be surprised) if one could sample an arbitrary set of DNA segments and find differences between possibly any sample of groups.
(eg i wonder if one compared a random sample of people in jail with ones out of jail based on some part of their DNA if one couldn’t be able to find a (possibly) spurious correlation between the DNA segment and social position.
(My impression is there are a ton of examples—-in part it is a sampling porblem (small size) but also a data mining issue (eg Bishop Berkely’s idea that its all in your mind, or F Celine (the great french freedom fight or flight – er )—’men see only what they look at, and look at only what they already have in mind’.
Anyway, even if most papers and everything else is wrong, doesn’t mean one shouldn’t be able to design an algorithm so that the correct people nonetheless get paid in full. One just applies a gauge transformation to the value function and then everything (including the sample) is the right size and significant too. )

Comment on More on why most results are wrong by Most of neuroscience is wrong | Scientific Clearing House

Most of neuroscience is wrong | Scientific Clearing House — Mon, 20 May 2013 17:46:21 +0000

[…] The argument follows his previous papers of why most published results are wrong (see here and here) but emphasizes the abundance of studies with small sample sizes in neuroscience. This both reduces […]

Comment on Why most published results are false by Most of neuroscience is wrong | Scientific Clearing House

Most of neuroscience is wrong | Scientific Clearing House — Mon, 20 May 2013 17:46:18 +0000

[…] are wrong. The argument follows his previous papers of why most published results are wrong (see here and here) but emphasizes the abundance of studies with small sample sizes in neuroscience. This […]

Comment on Bayesian model comparison Part 2 by ishi

ishi — Thu, 16 May 2013 09:13:33 +0000

refreshing memory, temperature says how many microstates are accessible–at T=0, just one, at T=infinity every particle can be in any microstate with equal probability. or, its the inverse of the change in entropy with respect to energy. the view of it as an ‘average’ basically says as everyone in lake wobegon rises up above average, they have more opportunities to be anything so long as the exponential form is maintained—- they can’t be anything all the time . (it might be nice to use some non-archimedian, surreal, or other logic however in which you have an expanding universe with evolving temperature in which people can be eveything all the time (multiverse in ‘the bottle’ (gil scott heron))).

Comment on Complexity is the narrowing of possibilities by meteorologistblog.blogspot.com

meteorologistblog.blogspot.com — Thu, 16 May 2013 09:05:59 +0000

Certain people think Cellulitis Upper Arm is still associated
with fat. They claimed that this product does exactly
what it claims. Hence, the tiny veins that transport blood towards brain might become
a little more research. I believe the safest thing for skin is natural oils such as almond or grapeseed oil before
topical application. Rub it in well to allow the honey to absorb.