Jesus's middle name is Hume! Caution: Some NSFW images within!

Page 1679 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Fritzo

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
10906167_10152704803498611_7217826523007927486_n.jpg
 
S

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
disappoint said:
I feel so bad for people who's cognitive ability is this bad.

This includes the annotator of the video. The tank is likely in the center of the vehicle. It's the fuel fill port and not the tank they meant. Also the problem the driver is having is likely one of lack of spacial awareness and not memory. She doesn't seem to know HOW to position the vehicle to achieve what she wants. Btw in most fuel stations here the hose is long enough to reach the other side of the vehicle for that reason. Though it appears that video may be taken in a different country than the one I reside in, so that may or may not apply there.
Click to expand...

The picture of the gas pump on your dash points to the side the tank is on
 
disappoint

disappoint

Lifer
Dec 7, 2009
10,132
382
126
Strk said:
The picture of the gas pump on your dash points to the side the tank is on
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. She got out of the vehicle and looked at where the door for the fuel fill port is. She didn't forget that in the few seconds it took to drive around to the other side.

Why did the chick(en) drive around in circles?
ans: To get to the other side.
 
Dr. Zaus

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,764
347
126
SagaLore said:
Likely the fact that chlorinated tap water was made to be hot. Who knows how cool they let it get before pouring it on. But regardless of temp it was still tap.


A proper study would have been setup like this:

- 2 plants, each getting room temperature purified water.
- 2 plants, each getting room temperature tap water.
- 2 plants, each getting cooled microwaved purified water.
- 2 plants, each getting cooled microwaved tap water.
Click to expand...

Actually you're going to want about 30-50 plants, seeds and location randomly assigned, in a controlled grow room, treatment blinded to the administrator, and a pre-test definition of what retardation of growth is. (i.e. fewer leaves, shorter stalk, shorter leaves, 'yellow' in color etc.) and more importantly why we expect to see these kinds of retardation.

Some could argue against the controlled grow room because of the randomization; but that just means any effect you're going to find is going to be, to some extent, more washed out by noise.

Finally, I think it's a bit silly that we're conducting an experiment without some sort of theory. For example, is the theory that there's some sort of residual radiation? If so, we know this is quite false as microwaves are non-ionizing. If we do find a difference wouldn't our prior knowledge indicate that even statistically significant differences in plant growth don't over-turn the basic physics of water and microwave ovens? Or are we testing the 'theory' that growth-'things' in the water are killed by microwaves? If so, we need to control for both 'things' and temperature aside from microwaves.

We need to pay attention to alternative explanations and control for them as well: First, randomness is always an alternative explanation. I would not feel comfortable with any finding until it's been replicated under the same conditions across many studies (an unfortunately rare situation). Second, are we assuming that plant growth-'things' are inherently good for all life? I assume we were not intending to utilize microwaved water for plant growth on a regular basis, and instead the plants are meant to generalize: But if the intent is to generalize to humans (the main consumers of microwaved water), then why would the growth-'things' killed by a microwave oven be something you want in your body? Without a theory by which to understand the mechanism, even a significant finding would not justify the generalization to a population that would be of any real interest.

With a theory the first step before undertaking the experiment should be to seek out alternative explanations and alternative theories and show that it is our theory, not competing explanations, that are the causal mechanism behind the predicted outcome.

Now, if we had a theory we could develop prior beliefs, and do this one (or more) plant per cell at a time, and use Bayesian inductive reasoning to update our prior beliefs until such time as we zero in on a belief state. If we are using a frequentist analysis we'll have to test all in one swoop.


 
Last edited:
norseamd

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
DixyCrat said:
Actually you're going to want about 30-50 plants, seeds and location randomly assigned, in a controlled grow room, treatment blinded to the administrator, and a pre-test definition of what retardation of growth is. (i.e. fewer leaves, shorter stalk, shorter leaves, 'yellow' in color etc.) and more importantly why we expect to see these kinds of retardation.

Some could argue against the controlled grow room because of the randomization; but that just means any effect you're going to find is going to be, to some extent, more washed out by noise.

Finally, I think it's a bit silly that we're conducting an experiment without some sort of theory. For example, is the theory that there's some sort of residual radiation? If so, we know this is quite false as microwaves are non-ionizing. If we do find a difference wouldn't our prior knowledge indicate that even statistically significant differences in plant growth don't over-turn the basic physics of water and microwave ovens? Or are we testing the 'theory' that growth-'things' in the water are killed by microwaves? If so, we need to control for both 'things' and temperature aside from microwaves.

We need to pay attention to alternative explanations and control for them as well: First, randomness is always an alternative explanation. I would not feel comfortable with any finding until it's been replicated under the same conditions across many studies (an unfortunately rare situation). Second, are we assuming that plant growth-'things' are inherently good for all life? I assume we were not intending to utilize microwaved water for plant growth on a regular basis, and instead the plants are meant to generalize: But if the intent is to generalize to humans (the main consumers of microwaved water), then why would the growth-'things' killed by a microwave oven be something you want in your body? Without a theory by which to understand the mechanism, even a significant finding would not justify the generalization to a population that would be of any real interest.

With a theory the first step before undertaking the experiment should be to seek out alternative explanations and alternative theories and show that it is our theory, not competing explanations, that are the causal mechanism behind the predicted outcome.

Now, if we had a theory we could develop prior beliefs, and do this one (or more) plant per cell at a time, and use Bayesian inductive reasoning to update our prior beliefs until such time as we zero in on a belief state. If we are using a frequentist analysis we'll have to test all in one swoop
Click to expand...

Think this is it. They seem to talk about bias and performing experiments while setting out to find something as causing bias even if very small as opposed to accidental experiments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSJ08E2ntQo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom