tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4266300416434206693.post8078585100196054346..comments2023-08-11T12:04:42.077+02:00Comments on The Church of Rationality: That's Not the Fast Lane to Stockholm [Edited]LemmusLemmushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00917054221547240969noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4266300416434206693.post-66692733424945381792008-05-22T12:10:00.000+02:002008-05-22T12:10:00.000+02:00Seth,I think both of your points are answered abov...Seth,<BR/><BR/>I think both of your points are answered above.LemmusLemmushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00917054221547240969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4266300416434206693.post-36537631030100559842008-05-22T05:25:00.000+02:002008-05-22T05:25:00.000+02:00well, at least it no longer says "Roberts . . . ac...well, at least it no longer says "Roberts . . . actively opposes testing the theory/the diet based on it" -- which makes me look like a nut. <BR/><BR/>"Somewhat angry"? Uh, yes, it is irritating to be portrayed as a nut and then, when you try to fix the mistake, it isn't fixed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4266300416434206693.post-69466967952186278142008-05-21T19:11:00.000+02:002008-05-21T19:11:00.000+02:00The post didn't explicitly say that you didn't pro...The post didn't explicitly say that you didn't promote the idea (which would be ridiculous), but it could have been read this way. I changed the post again, this time to:<BR/><BR/>"You have to push it - promote it, if you will. A successful large randomized controlled trial would presumably go a long way in convincing the scientific community of the theory's accuracy - Roberts, however, has explicitly said he's against such a trial at the present moment (e.g., see his comments at <A HREF="http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2005/03/learning_from_s.html" REL="nofollow">this post</A>). [In the comments section, Roberts points out that "[p]sychologists never do large randomized studies" and that he promotes the idea in other ways. That's true, but a relatively large randomized trial would be "a big convincer", as Andrew Gelman put it in the post linked to.]"<BR/><BR/>Which actually expresses what I meant to say better than previous versions. Please let me know if this is o.k.<BR/><BR/>I am under the impression that I made you somewhat angry. That certainly wasn't my intention!LemmusLemmushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00917054221547240969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4266300416434206693.post-78022104231581481962008-05-21T15:49:00.000+02:002008-05-21T15:49:00.000+02:00Your changes haven't fixed the problem. Your point...Your changes haven't fixed the problem. Your point #11 says "It is important to promote an idea. Roberts, on the other hand . . . " -- as if I'm not promoting it! But I am. As I've said here twice, I am helping others do research that tests my ideas. David Lykken was a psychologist. Psychologists never do large randomized studies. Yet they promote their ideas all the time. There are many ways to promote scientific ideas, and they include what I am doing.Seth Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07037579472015205177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4266300416434206693.post-16952512042834906362008-05-21T15:25:00.000+02:002008-05-21T15:25:00.000+02:00In my view, saying one is against something qualif...In my view, saying one is against something qualifies as "actively opposing". But I've changed it again to: "Roberts, on the other hand, has explicitly said he's against testing the theory/the diet based on it in a large randomized controlled trial at the present moment".LemmusLemmushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00917054221547240969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4266300416434206693.post-62142676405605908272008-05-21T14:04:00.000+02:002008-05-21T14:04:00.000+02:00And since small randomized trials are a step in th...And since small randomized trials are a step in the direction of large randomized trials, you could say I'm actively supporting large randomized trials, "supporting" in the sense of doing things that will make them more likely.Seth Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07037579472015205177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4266300416434206693.post-80136450864177636222008-05-21T12:56:00.000+02:002008-05-21T12:56:00.000+02:00Thanks. It's still inaccurate -- I don't "actively...Thanks. It's still inaccurate -- I don't "actively" oppose such trials, since if someone decided to do one I would certainly not get in their way. More importantly it's highly misleading since I am actively <I>supporting</I> small randomized trials. Nobody could possibly figure that out from what you wrote.Seth Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07037579472015205177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4266300416434206693.post-1273381344938074152008-05-19T16:39:00.000+02:002008-05-19T16:39:00.000+02:00Well, I wrote above 'Assuming that by "testing", E...Well, I wrote above <BR/><BR/>'Assuming that by "testing", Elizer means a randomized controlled trial...'<BR/><BR/>but I could see how this is still misleading. Sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent your views. I've changed it to:<BR/><BR/>'Roberts, on the other hand, actively opposes testing the theory/the diet based on it in a large randomized controlled trial at the present moment'<BR/><BR/>Is that accurate?LemmusLemmushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00917054221547240969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4266300416434206693.post-87105943484932514162008-05-19T15:31:00.000+02:002008-05-19T15:31:00.000+02:00"Roberts, on the other hand, actively opposes test..."Roberts, on the other hand, actively opposes testing the theory/the diet based on it at the present moment." You're wrong. I am now helping others do such tests.<BR/> <BR/>If you read again the post you cite, you will see that I support small tests over large ones. Maybe that was confusing. Did anything else give you the idea that I opposed testing my theory?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com