By definition, the top 2% are always better than the other 98%.stiperstones on Are "superforecasters" a real phenomenon?
Pre-selected so-called superforecasters were one of the groups asked to anticipate the outcome of UK's referendum on membership of the European Union and they gave a 23% chance of a vote against membership succeeding - the lowest % and worst performance of all groups asked to predict the result. For a forecasting system to be reliable, it has to be assessed as to its skill over a period of continuous forecasting that will tell you what % of forecasts are correct. To.be useful, this figure should be about 70% or more. The only forecasting system that exceeds this level of skill is the weather forecasting system. Superforecasting does not exist.donald-hobson on Trust-Building: The New Rationality Project
I agree that this is a real phenomena that can happen in domains where verifying a correct answer is not much easier than coming up with one.
However, epistemic norms regarding what counts as valid evidence are culturally transmitted. People using occams razor will come to different conclusions from the people using divine revelation. (Similar to how mathmeticians using different axioms will come to different conclusions.)adamshimi on How to (not) do a literature review
Thanks for the good post!
I especially liked the recommended questions:
1. The goal for your literature review should be to identify the problem that your project will solve. Your project might either aim to solve a new problem, or improve on an existing method.
2. Use the literature review to identify *gaps* in the literature: What do we not yet know?
3. What are the shortcomings of existing methods to solve the problem? Why are current approaches not yet useful in practice? What is the bottleneck?
I personally like to write literature reviews or related works sections for my papers, and I approach it that way. I am basically trying to place what I did or what I want to do in contrast with what has already been done, so that reader not familiar with the specifics can gauge the value of the work. There's an element of filtering the papers for the only ones that are relevant, while trying to maintain some objectivity and not piss people without intending to (important!)
Another advice I find useful is to ask for feedback on the lit review to collaborators and other researchers you know in the field. That's basically what happens during a good peer-review, where the reviewer will usually recommend you papers if they think you are missing important references.willbradshaw on Why We Age, Part 2: Non-adaptive theories
Interestingly, Other Minds (a recent popular science book about cephalopods) seems to mostly put credence in non-adaptive theories, and indeed has a very nice general exposition of these theories (the section of the book after the passages I quote in that link talks at length about octopus semelparity).willbradshaw on Why We Age, Part 2: Non-adaptive theories
I don't believe it.
So unless there's solid evidence that DDW makes mice immortal, as opposed to making their coats (maybe, subjectively) a bit glossier, saying that "aging could be simply caused by deuterium and evolutionary explanations would then be a red herring" is flagrant hyperbole, verging on making stuff up.mary-chernyshenko on Our Need for Need
Seems like an obvious way out is to invent more art? Art requires admirers, in the old meaning of the word, contemplators. But the world as a whole won't go that way.dvasya on OpenAI announces GPT-3
badum-tsssbob-jacobs on Should we stop using the term 'Rationalist'?
Happy to hear you like it, though I wish I got some more reactions so I could take stab at guessing the rates of approval/disapproval/ambivalence. I know this post got downvoted but knowing percentages might give a clearer picture of whether or not we could switch. Any chance we could get a poll feature in the future? We used to have annual surveys but they have stopped for some reason?pattern on On the construction of the self