https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
Is this to then argue the validity of being Alice?
Past a point it makes sense to accept data from people who are more qualified than we are, unless you literally plan to test everything.
Except the qualified people publish, and can publish which is the crazy thing, results that take very little effort to falsify with with a years training in mathematical statistics and a computer.
If knowledge about the validity of any given claim in your field of interest requires something such as statistics (I say statistics because it is usually the threshold) and you don't know statistics, then you can make truth claims but in actuality you do not know if they are true or not.
I don't mind your response, it will continue to be the standard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
Is this to then argue the validity of being Alice?
Would you like to argue that?
The system is kind of interesting actually, currently information is asymmetric and incomplete depending on who you are.
Given the information I have my certainty of being the member of SC known as Alice is 1(even if I am not them) but everyone else has varying information levels and therefore different certainties. You and TC are understandably skeptical given your lack of information along with what seems to be some bias towards irrelevant information (this last point is more geared towards TC given they seem to believe I may be someone else, though maybe it is relevant).
At the moment Tony, Med, Trypt, and of course peach are in the best positions to know if I am Alice or not given they interact with me on Discord and Peach lives with me. Hence, they have additional relevant information which increases the significance of whatever certainty they estimate.
What information do you need to increase your certainty and how certain do you need to be?
Past a point it makes sense to accept data from people who are more qualified than we are, unless you literally plan to test everything.
Except the qualified people publish, and can publish which is the crazy thing, results that take very little effort to falsify with with a years training in mathematical statistics and a computer.
Then publish a paper disputing their findings?
Surely others with qualifications have tried, if you noticed it they would too right?
Either that or you might be the one with wrong data from overlooking something in the testing, hard to know when I can't see your data.
I don't mind your response, it will continue to be the standard.
...why would you mind my response?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
Is this to then argue the validity of being Alice?
Would you like to argue that?
The system is kind of interesting actually, currently information is asymmetric and incomplete depending on who you are.
Given the information I have my certainty of being the member of SC known as Alice is 1(even if I am not them) but everyone else has varying information levels and therefore different certainties. You and TC are understandably skeptical given your lack of information along with what seems to be some bias towards irrelevant information (this last point is more geared towards TC given they seem to believe I may be someone else, though maybe it is relevant).
Ultimately it doesn't really matter to me if you are or aren't the real one, but accusing as such is a win-win.
There has been some activity mildly pretending to be you, alongside a user trying to use your name to try to get others to leave the site with you, in the same vein as how puppet people (person) has pretended to be Alena, Crow, and some other female users on here.
At the moment Tony, Med, Trypt, and of course peach are in the best positions to know if I am Alice or not given they interact with me on Discord and Peach lives with me.
No offense but Spatial and Med get a lot of shit wrong, and Tryp while more thorough lets himself jump to conclusions about as readily as I do (but he does have your original Discord account... hmm).
Peach would be the best bet of verification, assuming she doesn't end up PMing with the one behind this puppet to try to prank people if not just verifying it falsely for the lols. She tends to be honest though so it'd probably mean more.
What information do you need to increase your certainty and how certain do you need to be?
You'd need to say, show, or otherwise present something only the real Alice would know or have, with someone like Peach to verify it as a secondary source. If you never changed Discord accounts Tryp could probably prove it too with a screencap or something where you're like "Yeah I'm the weird username with Underscores" (presuming Alice doesn't end up saying yes for the lols...).
For most people I usually have something more to work with for proof-stuff, but... not really for you/her beyond times Alice has put in more effort than was necessary. I don't think we did much if anything on Discord either, and the mutual groups we were in she left.
You are at least at this point not acting like the puppet dude, but unlike Peach, Alice wasn't distinctive enough on here until getting into a rant. If this were a puppet pretending to be her it'd be better for people to be skeptical, rather than accept any account claiming to be her as if it were. I've seen enough accounts here do that with others pretended on (alongside fake Alice accounts too) that it's safer to question it when they aren't otherwise flashy enough to make it obvious, like Psychopath Dave or TK, but even with a lack of flair time passing with continued activity still helps.
Past a point it makes sense to accept data from people who are more qualified than we are, unless you literally plan to test everything.
Except the qualified people publish, and can publish which is the crazy thing, results that take very little effort to falsify with with a years training in mathematical statistics and a computer.
Then publish a paper disputing their findings?
Surely others with qualifications have tried, if you noticed it they would too right?
Either that or you might be the one with wrong data from overlooking something in the testing, hard to know when I can't see your data.
Most journals reject reproduction studies, that's probably a big part of the problem. From time to time mass reproduction studies are accepted and that's what drew so much attention to this problem in the first place but they have not caused any substantial change.
Outside journals though there are lots of people who just like mathematical statistics and analyze junk for fun, which is cool but unlike to be any significant cultural force that causes real change.
Honestly I don't care if anything changes, its just an observation that even people who think they know what they are talking about don;t because they have no real grasp what it means to truly verify a result.
I don't mind your response, it will continue to be the standard....why would you mind my response?
By my statement I am merely saying that your response is the typical one and it will assure the problem continues well into the future, and I totally accept that future.
I don't mind your response, it will continue to be the standard....why would you mind my response?
By my statement I am merely saying that your response is the typical one and it will assure the problem continues well into the future, and I totally accept that future.
What kind of world would it be if no one leaned on those of superior understanding, only believing that which they've personally tested?
They'd die before they even get through half of it. Beyond that I disagree with your idea that a paper once published can't be attacked by superior findings beyond the realm of gatekeeping practices and paywalls. Older findings have been debunked and replaced in general, so why not other ones if you otherwise have the means?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
Is this to then argue the validity of being Alice?
Would you like to argue that?
The system is kind of interesting actually, currently information is asymmetric and incomplete depending on who you are.
Given the information I have my certainty of being the member of SC known as Alice is 1(even if I am not them) but everyone else has varying information levels and therefore different certainties. You and TC are understandably skeptical given your lack of information along with what seems to be some bias towards irrelevant information (this last point is more geared towards TC given they seem to believe I may be someone else, though maybe it is relevant).
Ultimately it doesn't really matter to me if you are or aren't the real one, but accusing as such is a win-win.
There has been some activity mildly pretending to be you, alongside a user trying to use your name to try to get others to leave the site with you, in the same vein as how puppet people (person) has pretended to be Alena, Crow, and some other female users on here.
It is a win-win, it makes for an interesting series of posts and for those who don't know its me will come to know its me. Given I a m coming back under some alternative account it is totally reasonable to doubt.
I as the real Alice would never condone the death of SC, I hope it always exists. It's kind of my favorite place on the internet to be honest, even when I'm away for long periods.
At the moment Tony, Med, Trypt, and of course peach are in the best positions to know if I am Alice or not given they interact with me on Discord and Peach lives with me.
No offense but Spatial and Med get a lot of shit wrong, and Tryp while more thorough lets himself jump to conclusions about as readily as I do (but he does have your original Discord account... hmm).
Peach would be the best bet of verification, assuming she doesn't end up PMing with the one behind this puppet to try to prank people if not just verifying it falsely for the lols. She tends to be honest though so it'd probably mean more.
They do get a lot wrong but in this particular case Tony has been a consistent contact and for the past weeks I've been talking to Med more than anyone.
Given Trypt just accepted it was me is proof to your theory, the last time we spoke was few weeks ago so maybe he just recognizes me intuitively.
Peach will eventually verify when she comes back, she may refrain because she finds this game fun.
What information do you need to increase your certainty and how certain do you need to be?You'd need to say, show, or otherwise present something only the real Alice would know or have, with someone like Peach to verify it as a secondary source. If you never changed Discord accounts Tryp could probably prove it too with a screencap or something where you're like "Yeah I'm the weird username with Underscores" (presuming Alice doesn't end up saying yes for the lols...).
For most people I usually have something more to work with for proof-stuff, but... not really for you/her beyond times Alice has put in more effort than was necessary. I don't think we did much if anything on Discord either, and the mutual groups we were in she left.
You are at least at this point not acting like the puppet dude, but unlike Peach, Alice wasn't distinctive enough on here until getting into a rant. If this were a puppet pretending to be her it'd be better for people to be skeptical, rather than accept any account claiming to be her as if it were. I've seen enough accounts here do that with others pretended on (alongside fake Alice accounts too) that it's safer to question it when they aren't otherwise flashy enough to make it obvious, like Psychopath Dave or TK, but even with a lack of flair time passing with continued activity still helps.
We can do the discord thing but lets see if you remember this, you do have a good memory.
You and I have had very few interactions in DM, however once upon a time when crave was around a brief dm took place on discord in which you asked me if I really speak the way I type.
A question, what does it mean that I've never been distinct enough? I agree my rants can get little crazy to say the least.
I don't mind your response, it will continue to be the standard....why would you mind my response?
By my statement I am merely saying that your response is the typical one and it will assure the problem continues well into the future, and I totally accept that future.
What kind of world would it be if no one leaned on those of superior understanding, only believing that which they've personally tested?
They'd die before they even get through half of it. Beyond that I disagree with your idea that a paper once published can't be attacked by superior findings beyond the realm of gatekeeping practices and paywalls. Older findings have been debunked and replaced in general, so why not other ones if you otherwise have the means?
A world full of mathematicians, we'd all starve to death but it'd be so romantic.
A more feasible fix would be a change to publishing culture where if something is published you know its almost certainly right, we just don't live in that world for some reason. If barrier to entry was much harder 70%+ of studies would be filtered out and then anything you read is probably correct, and if you want to reproduce there is a journal for that too.
That wouldn't solve miss use of papers in twitter fights but we don't really need to fix that, things would be more hopeful if experts in their field actually where experts in something.
I understand your disagreement but its literally a rule in most journals that they will not publish reproductions. So critique must be done more subtly if it is to be published or you can say fuck that all together and just destroy somebodies work in a blog or at conferences.
I love twitter fights were a math stats person drops a non published paper about how some published groups work is trash, if you speak the language you know who's right.
