A great text on fallacies and biases of scientists and scientific community: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPa...
WM editors and especially Wikipedia editors should have that in their mind.
On 2 January 2011 21:50, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
A great text on fallacies and biases of scientists and scientific community: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPa...
No really it isn't. Once you remove the waffle it really boils down to "[[Publication bias]] exists" (while falling for it itself since it fails to mention the clear publication bias in Funnel plots) and "[[Regression toward the mean]] exists". Both of these are well known and there are a range of statistical and methodological attacks to deal with them.
The article then goes of the deep end and starts attacking some strawman (some version of experimentalism by the look of it but that's unclear) version of the scientific method.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org