User Profile

When there is no true effect, and test assumptions are met, p-values for a t-test are uniformly distributed. This means that every p-value is equally likely to be observed when the null hypothesis is true. In other words, when there is no true effect, a p-value of 0.08 is just as likely as a p-value of 0.98. I remember thinking this was very counterintuitive when I first learned about uniform p-value distributions (well after completing my PhD). But it makes sense that p-values are uniformly distributed when we think about the goal to guarantee that when H0 is true, alpha % of the p-values should fall below the alpha level. If we set alpha to 0.01, 1% of the observed p-values should fall below 0.01, and if we set alpha to 0.12, 12% of the observed p-values should fall below 0.12. This can only happen if p-values are uniformly distributed when the null hypothesis is true

— Improving Your Statistical Inferences by Daniel Lakens

With increasing social conflict, differences in the values, attitudes, and modes of thought of groups develop to the point where the orientation which these groups previously had in common is overshadowed by incompatible differences. Not only do there develop distinct universes of discourse, but the existence of any one universe challenges the validity and legitimacy of the others. The coexistence of these conflicting perspectives and interpretations within the same society leads to an active and reciprocal distrust between groups. Within a context of distrust, one no longer inquires into the content of beliefs and assertions to determine whether they are valid or not, one no longer confronts the assertions with relevant evidence, but introduces an entirely new question: how does it happen that these views are maintained? Thought becomes functionalized; it is interpreted in terms of its psychological or economic or social or racial sources and functions. In general, this type of functionalizing occurs when statements are doubted, when they appear so palpably implausible or absurd or biased that one need no longer examine the evidence for or against the statement but only the grounds for its being asserted at all. Such alien statements are “explained by” or “imputed to” special interests, unwitting motives, distorted perspectives, social position, and so on. In folk thought, this involves reciprocal attacks on the integrity of opponents; in more systematic thought, it leads to reciprocal ideological analyses. On both levels, it feeds upon and nourishes collective insecurities.

— The Sociology of Science : Theoretical and Empirical Investigations by Robert K. Merton

Most of us, most of the time, live with the unquestioned belief that the world looks as it does because that’s the way it is. There is one small step from this belief to another: “Other people view the world much the way I do.” These beliefs, which have been called naive realism, are essential to the sense of a reality we share with other people. We rarely question these beliefs. We hold a single interpretation of the world around us at any one time, and we normally invest little effort in generating plausible alternatives to it. One interpretation is enough, and we experience it as true. We do not go through life imagining alternative ways of seeing what we see.

— Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment by Olivier Sibony, Daniel Kahneman, Cass R. Sunstein

We also felt responsible for conveying through our work that science does not necessarily mean an austere conception of the human. We also wanted to promote a certain humanist conception of scientific research that could, through emphasizing the universality of sensory experiences prevent the dangers of a reductionist view. Instead of chasing analytic academic publica-tions and improving our citation index, we need a philosophy of Slow Thought to ease thinking into a more playful and porous dialogue about what it means to live (Nicola, 2018), and take time to learn from other domains of knowledge, to remain filled with wonder at the diversity of human productions across time and cultures.

— Sensory Experiences by Danièle Dubois, Caroline Cance, Matt Coler, and 2 others

"In order for a microphone to be considered as a high-fidelity component of an audio system, it should produce a transduced signal that faithfully follows the waveform of sound, introducing no distortion of its own. Applying this criterion, the construction and functioning of the ear is extremely poor. [...] The pinna produces resonances and time delays that change the intensity and phase of spectral components in a manner which varies with azimuth and elevation of the source. Although these changes would be considered serious defects if produced by microphones or other physical instruments, they can furnish valuable perceptual information. Thus, the complex acoustic changes produced by the pinnae when a source moves provide information concerning position, and result in perception of an unchanging sound at a changing location. Thus, some spectral changes cannot be perceived as such: they are interpreted as changes occurring in an external physical correlate (azimuth and elevation of the source) while the nature of the sound (its quality or timbre) appears to be unchanged. [...] As Helmholtz has stated: we are exceedingly well trained in finding out by our sensations the objective nature of the objects around us, but we are completely unskilled in observing the sensations per se."

— Auditory Perception by Richard M. Warren