how many know what double blind means?

Discussion in 'Scientific Statistics Math' started by RichD, Oct 2, 2011.

  1. RichD

    RichD Guest

    I was watching a "Bullshit" episode, some nitwit blithers
    about her chrysanthemum tea cure for rheumatism;
    "It works for me, first hand experience, that's what
    counts!" And Jillete responds "I'm so impressed by
    your double blind study"

    Which made me wonder... how much of the population
    knows what that is, what it means, and why?
    My non-double blind experience says, less than 10%.

    Is that a social or political problem? I think so, as
    gummit at all levels grabs and spends so much of
    our product - oops, I mean "invests" - and if the
    public, and our rulers, don't get it, that could engender
    tremendous wastage.
    RichD, Oct 2, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichD

    porky_pig_jr Guest

    While we're at it, there was obituary in NYTimes recently. The
    inventor of double-blind studies passed away. There was a nice
    explanation of the concept and why. I forgot the name of the guy. But
    the very fact that it is considered an invention means before that
    researchers weren't quite aware of importance of that concept.

    porky_pig_jr, Oct 2, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichD

    Frank Guest

    I read a while back that about 18% of all people in my state were
    illiterate. That means that while they may be able to read some words
    and understand signs, they cannot even read as much as a newspaper.

    It's been my feeling that technical illiteracy runs much higher so maybe
    10% is a good number for understanding the concept.

    Personally, I think the government take advantage of these statistics.

    I have a book marker from the ACS that says: "Only 5 percent of the
    members of Congress have backgrounds in science and engineering. Yet,
    everyday they make decisions that impact the scientific community."
    Frank, Oct 2, 2011
  4. RichD

    Sam Wormley Guest


    "Double-blind describes an especially stringent way of conducting an
    experiment, usually on human subjects, in an attempt to eliminate
    subjective bias on the part of both experimental subjects and the
    experimenters. In most cases, double-blind experiments are held to
    achieve a higher standard of scientific rigor.

    "In a double-blind experiment, neither the individuals nor the
    researchers know who belongs to the control group and the experimental
    group. Only after all the data have been recorded (and in some cases,
    analysed) do the researchers learn which individuals are which.
    Performing an experiment in double-blind fashion is a way to lessen the
    influence of the prejudices and unintentional physical cues on the
    results (the placebo effect, observer bias, and experimenter's bias).
    Random assignment of the subject to the experimental or control group is
    a critical part of double-blind research design. The key that identifies
    the subjects and which group they belonged to is kept by a third party
    and not given to the researchers until the study is over.

    "Double-blind methods can be applied to any experimental situation where
    there is the possibility that the results will be affected by conscious
    or unconscious bias on the part of the experimenter.

    "Computer-controlled experiments are sometimes also erroneously referred
    to as double-blind experiments, since software may not cause the type of
    direct bias between researcher and subject. Development of surveys
    presented to subjects through computers shows that bias can easily be
    built into the process. Voting systems are also examples where bias can
    easily be constructed into an apparently simple machine based system. In
    analogy to the human researcher described above, the part of the
    software that provides interaction with the human is presented to the
    subject as the blinded researcher, while the part of the software that
    defines the key is the third party. An example is the ABX test, where
    the human subject has to identify an unknown stimulus X as being either
    A or B".
    Sam Wormley, Oct 2, 2011
  5. It means sci.math.

    They are blind that their proofs are all entirely rubbish,
    and blind to the myriad of counterexamples presented here.


    1 -> {1}
    2 -> {1,3,5,7,...}
    3 -> {4,5,6}




    You come up with anything missing yet?
    Try Ay (y in k <-> (y in x /\ y not in f(y)))


    k = {2,3,...} so far

    that's MISSING from P(N)

    OK, now for my remaining infinite subsets (nothing to do with 2 or 3)

    Graham Cooper, Oct 3, 2011
  6. RichD

    porky_pig_jr Guest


    if you psychiatrist told you you need a frontal lobotomy and your
    insurance plan doesn't cover that procedure, I'm sure many of us on
    sci.math will be (more than) glad to help you. Just let us know.


    porky_pig_jr, Oct 3, 2011
  7. you're all talk! I made $1400 yesterday on you?

    Graham Cooper, Oct 3, 2011
  8. RichD

    george152 Guest

    Still dreaming huh
    george152, Oct 3, 2011
  9. Graham Cooper, Oct 3, 2011
  10. I'd say that is about right.
    Most people just aren't into thinking about things that abstract. On
    the other hand, I think every college graduate should know this, and
    that is not the case today.
    Every college graduate who intends to go into business should know
    what basic statistics mean and the common errors encountered. Today
    they do not know this. Most scientists also don't know. In this case
    it is the fault of the college system. The teaching of statistics is
    almost a complete waste of the student's time.
    Frisbieinstein, Oct 3, 2011
  11. RichD

    Bob Casanova Guest

    I'd go a bit farther - Every college should require courses
    in statistics, elementary logic and civics before *any*
    degree is granted. That way the graduates will have been at
    least exposed to the knowledge of how to think, and how
    their society is intended to work; college shouldn't be
    solely a trade school. And I say this as one with a degree
    in engineering, which emphatically did *not* require any of
    these, but should have.

    Just my 20 mills; YMMV.

    Bob C.

    "Evidence confirming an observation is
    evidence that the observation is wrong."
    - McNameless
    Bob Casanova, Oct 3, 2011

  12. It's hard to agree on what teaches reasoning, surely a few good
    examples would help,

    but look what the skeptic movement came up with -


    ignore all evidence, laugh and scoff at anything presented that may be
    new, all just holler BULLSHIT at everything that you haven't seen
    approved by 'scientists' before.

    Biggest ignoramus cult on earth, Occam's Razor is ANTI-SCIENTIFIC-

    Any course on 'rational thinking' would be equally hypocritical.

    Graham Cooper, Oct 3, 2011
  13. ["Followup-To:" header set to sci.chem,sci.stat]

    On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 14:45:52 -0700 (PDT),
    Perhaps you're thinking of Paul Meier? The NYTimes piece I saw
    didn't mention blinding, but noted him as an early proponent of
    randomization--as well as a co-inventor of the widely used
    Kaplan-Meier analysis.
    Theodore Heise, Oct 4, 2011

  14. Well yeah. Like I said, the way it is taught now is a complete waste
    of time. If it were me the students would not do a single
    calculation. Not one. For statistics it would all be concepts,
    which tests to apply in what circumstances, where the common models
    work and where they fail, and how to interpret the meaning and/or lack
    thereof of the results. For logic it would all be finding flaws or
    lack thereof in arguments in news articles, and constructing arguments
    oneself. I don't recall having ever done much of that in school.

    Civics was required in the 9th grade where I came from.
    Frisbieinstein, Oct 4, 2011
  15. RichD

    Bob Casanova Guest

    I'd argue that solving actual problems, complete with the
    required calculations, is a valuable teaching aid. Once, of
    course, the students have learned the concepts.
    10th for me, but I believe it's been dropped from
    public-school curricula nearly everywhere in favor of
    various flavors of "self-actualization" BS.

    Bob C.

    "Evidence confirming an observation is
    evidence that the observation is wrong."
    - McNameless
    Bob Casanova, Oct 4, 2011
  16. RichD

    Bob Casanova Guest

    Sorry, but you'll have to learn to reason logically on your
    own. But based on various claims I've seen you make I don't
    hold out much hope for that. But you can start with the fact
    that making a claim isn't evidence regarding the validity of
    the claim.
    Nope. All skeptics require is evidence, and evidence is
    sorely lacking for any of your claims.
    Ockham would be interested to know your reasoning behind
    that statement, given that it's been successfully applied
    for centuries.
    Unfortunately, you're incapable of judging; one must be
    capable of rational and logical thought to judge it.

    Bob C.

    "Evidence confirming an observation is
    evidence that the observation is wrong."
    - McNameless
    Bob Casanova, Oct 4, 2011

  17. Notice how Occam's Razor can be used to uphold itself!

    Graham Cooper, Oct 4, 2011
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.