• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

"More fields should, like particle physics, adopt blind analysis to thwart bias" (Nature)

D

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
Effi

Effi

Senior Member
Messages
1,496
Location
Europe
article said:
Finally, blind analysis helps to socialize students into what sociologist Robert Merton called science's culture of 'organized scepticism'. As Feynman put it: “This long history of learning how to not fool ourselves — of having utter scientific integrity — is, I'm sorry to say, something that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis. The first principle [of science] is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
Click to expand...
 
Jonathan Edwards

Jonathan Edwards

"Gibberish"
Messages
5,256
It is an interesting concept and could be very valuable. Whether or not one could get it used more in clinical trials I do not know.

Actually I think I have been doing this for a while for the simple reason that most of the data I analyse are produced by Dr Jo Cambridge and Jo has a habit of not marking the names of the variable on her graphs as they come fresh off the graph programme. She is so used to knowing what they are it does not cross her mind that I have not the faintest idea what she is showing me. I then peer at the graph and try and work out what it might be a graph of and what interesting effect it would therefore show. There have been times when I used to do this to avoid sounding so stupid as to ask what the graph was of but now that I am retired I am allowed to look stupid so I do it for fun and then ask what the heck it is supposed to be about. I tend to find that a sign of a really successful experiment is that I can see just by the shape of things that there is an interesting and robust finding. And if I can work out what the variables are without even having to ask, and what the key time points are then it is even more impressive.

I am a bit dubious about the idea of deliberately distorting the data, presumably on the basis that statistical relations will remain unchanged with some systematic transformation even if the sign is changed or something. Often the most important things in biological data are kinetic profiles, which vary in certain parameters from individual to individual so that a crude distortion could easily destroy statistical relations completely. But it is likely that if one knew the practicalities of these techniques one could use them sensibly for biological data.
 
S

Sean

Senior Member
Messages
7,378
The first principle [of science] is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.

Should be engraved in stone over the entrance to every science based institution, and should be the first & last line in any science based book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.