i would love to for us all to share our thoughts/opinions/views on the continuum hypothesis
[long post snipped but you should definitely go read it]
i should qualify this all up front of course that i’ve barely dabbled in formal set theory (and in particular, in foundations of…
[long post snipped but you should definitely go read it]
this one made me sit and think for a while and def mellowed out my opinion; the idea that L restricts the kind of subsets that can exist is an unsettling one and when i ask myself “what is a subset really” i get spooked
“All of which makes $15 an hour sound too high. Hardly. Over the last half-century, American workers have achieved productivity gains that can easily support a $15-an-hour minimum wage. In fact, if the minimum wage had kept pace over time with the average growth in productivity, it would be about $17 an hour. The problem is that the benefits of that growth have flowed increasingly to profits, shareholders and executives, not workers. The result has been bigger returns to capital, higher executive pay — and widening income inequality.”—
notstatschat:There’s a paper in PNAS suggesting that lots of published scientific associations are likely to be false, and that Bayesian considerations imply a p-value threshold of 0.005 instead of 0.05 would be good. It’s had an impact outside the statistical world, eg, with a post on the blog Ars Technica. The motivation for the PNAS paper is a statistics paper showing how to relate p-values to Bayes Factors in some tests.
Some people have asked me what I think. So.
1. I much prefer the other way (non-paywalled tech report) to get classical p-values as part of an optimal Bayesian decision, because it’s based on estimation rather than on identifying arbitrary alternatives, and it seems to correspond better to what my scientific colleagues are trying to do with p-values. Ok, and because Ken is a friend.
2. The PNAS paper starts off by talking about reproducibility in terms of scientific fraud and slides into talking about publishing results that don’t meet the proposed new p<0.005. I’m not exaggerating: here’s the complete first paragraph
Reproducibility of scientific research is critical to the scientific endeavor, so the apparent lack of reproducibility threatens the credibility of the scientific enterprise (e.g., refs. 1 and 2). Unfortunately, concern over the nonreproducibility of scientific studies has become so pervasive that a Web site, Retraction Watch, has been established to monitor the large number of retracted papers, and methodology for detecting flawed studies has developed nearly into a scientific discipline of its own
That’s not a rhetorical device I’m happy with, to put it mildly.
3. If you don’t use p-value thresholds as a publishing criterion, the change won’t have any impact. And if you think p-value thresholds should be a publishing criterion, you’ve got worse problems than reproducibility.
4. False negatives are errors, too. People already report “there was no association between X and Y ” (or worse “there was no effect of X on Y”) in subgroups where the p-value is greater than 0.05. If you have the same data and decrease the false positives you have to increase the false negatives.
5. The problem isn’t the threshold so much as the really weak data in a lot of research, especially small-sample experimental research [large-sample observational research has different problems]. Larger sample sizes or better experimental designs would actually reduce the error rate; moving the threshold only swaps which kind of error you make.
6. Standards are valuable in scientific writing, but only to the extent that they reduce communication costs. That applies to statistical terminology as much as it applies to structured abstracts. Changing standards imposes substantial costs and is only worth it if there are substantial benefits.
7. And finally, why is it a disaster that a single study doesn’t always reach the correct answer? Why would any reasonable person expect it to? It’s not as if we have to ignore everything except the results of that one experiment in making any decisions.
Tens of millions of Pakistani children will struggle to lay their hands on the book written by Malala Yousafzai after the organisation representing the country’s private schools decided to ban it.
The All Pakistan Private Schools Federation, which says it represents more than 152,000 institutions across the country, has decided that allowing pupils to read the book, I am Malala, would have a “negative” effect on them. The federation also said it believed the book was not entirely respectful of Islam.
The book will not be included in the schools’ curriculum, nor will it be stocked in school libraries. Pakistan’s most elite schools belong to the federation. The government does not plan to teach it in state schools, though it is not banned.
"The federation thought we should review the book, and having reviewed it we came to the decision that the book was not suitable for our children, particularly not our students," said the federation’s president, Mirza Kashif. "Pakistan is an ideological country. That ideology is based on Islam…. In this book are many comments that are contrary to our ideology."
The book, written jointly by the teenage education campaigner who was shot last year by the Taliban, and a British journalist, Christina Lamb, was published last month to widespread international enthusiasm. The 16-year-old tells of her life in the Swat Valley – where her father ran a private school – when it was under Taliban rule, of writing an anonymous blog for the BBC, and of her campaign for girls’ education.
Yet in Pakistan, the reaction to Malala and her book has been mixed. Many have claimed she has been used by the West for its own interests. The Taliban threatened to attack bookshops that stocked it.
Mr Kashif, who said 25 million pupils attended private schools in Pakistan, claimed that in the book Malala had defended the writing of Salman Rushdie on the grounds of free speech and had failed to use the abbreviation PUH – “peace be upon him” – when referring to the prophet Mohamed. He said there was a sense that Malala had not written large parts of the book, because it referred to things that happened before she was born.
Observers say the ban comes amid discussions in Pakistan about Malala’s actions. It also follows recent controversy at a celebrated Lahore private school that started teaching sex education.
"The decision to ban the book is the result of a deliberate smear campaign run against Malala and the book by right-wing commentators," said Bina Shah, a Karachi-based novelist and education campaigner. "There has been complete confusion about the book, sown very deliberately in the minds of adults because of this right-wing talk."
In Pakistan, some of Malala’s strongest supporters are schoolgirls. Yet pupils from Lahore’s exclusive Bloomfield Hall School, where fees are £116 a month, held mixed views about the book.
Zonash Raza, 15, said she sympathised with Malala, yet believed her speech at the United Nations was damaging to the country’s reputation. “The world already gets to hear a lot of corruption stories about Pakistan and this is only going to add to that same image,” she said. Yumna Afzal, 16, said Malala was an inspiration for girls across the country and that she had revealed the importance of education.
"The decision [to ban the book] is completely wrong and it is a conspiracy to show Malala as a US puppet," she said. "I have heard talk shows on TV where people are claiming Malala is fake and the injuries she received are not real, but I really don’t agree with them. She is a hero and an inspiration."
Ramsha Shoaib, 15, said: “Personally, I think it was a biased decision to send Malala to the UN to represent Pakistan because there are millions of other girls who are suffering far greater hardships, but are never noticed or sent to the UN…. She is giving a very negative image to the world outside. She, being a girl, was supposed to portray a positive image of the country.”
A recent briefing document prepared by Unicef suggested Pakistan faced a “myriad of challenges” in its efforts to educate its youngsters. Indeed, after Nigeria, Pakistan has the second highest number of unschooled children in the world.
The situation is especially poor for girls, particularly in rural areas. In the remote tribal areas that border Afghanistan, Unicef says that maybe only one in five girls attends school. Across Pakistan, adult literacy for women stands at 45 per cent, compared with 70 per cent for men.
Mr Kashif, the federation president, said that more than half of children in Pakistan attended private schools. He said half of all pupils were girls and that women made up 90 per cent of teaching staff. He said if Malala agreed to changes to the book, the federation would review its decision. He denied the ban was prompted by fears of attacks.
"We are the biggest supporters of Malala. The private schools shut down [when she was shot]. We all support her, we are not against her. She is our daughter," he said. "If she would look at these things and take measures not to hurt the emotions of Muslims, we will welcome it."
The American Bar Association released a groundbreaking legal primer for transgender adults before, during, and after their transitions with regard to numerous legal spheres that in many states remains murky.
Eckert’s attorney, Shannon Kennedy, said in an interview with KOB that after law enforcement asked him to step out of the vehicle, he appeared to be clenching his buttocks. Law enforcement thought that was probable cause to suspect that Eckert was hiding narcotics in his anal cavity. While officers detained Eckert, they secured a search warrant from a judge that allowed for an anal cavity search.
The lawsuit claims that Deming Police tried taking Eckert to an emergency room in Deming, but a doctor there refused to perform the anal cavity search citing it was “unethical.”
But physicians at the Gila Regional Medical Center in Silver City agreed to perform the procedure and a few hours later, Eckert was admitted.
1. Eckert’s abdominal area was x-rayed; no narcotics were found.
2. Doctors then performed an exam of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
3. Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
4. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
5. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
6. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
7. Doctors then x-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.
8. Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert’s anus, rectum, colon, and large intestines. No narcotics were found.
Throughout this ordeal, Eckert protested and never gave doctors at the Gila Regional Medical Center consent to perform any of these medical procedures….
Rape and sexual assault on college campuses and other educational institutions has become such a topic du jour around sites like Jezebel and xoJane that it seems as if some people ignore it…
UVA really does seem to suck profusely at protecting its students, particularly the female population who do find themselves in unfortunate situations. This only makes me more passionate about my sorority’s philanthropy, combating domestic violence/violence against women. UVA please get your shit together.
Damn, I took a fiction writing class with this girl.
Guys say really disturbingly rapey and misogynist things in class all the time. Every time I call someone out on it in a new class, someone walks up to me after class and says “As a sexual assault victim, thank you.”
It absolutely breaks my heart to see how pathetically common these experiences are, particularly at a highly-rated public university that prides itself on fostering a ‘community of trust.’
Elizabeth is such a wonderful person. Whoever does this to ANYONE, especially someone as wonderful as Elizabeth, needs to go crawl into a corner and never come out.
"A measure that would outlaw workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity overcame a significant obstacle in the Senate as seven Republicans crossed party lines and voted to begin debate on the bill.
The 61-to-30 vote means that the full Senate will consider a measure to extend federal nondiscrimination law to gay, lesbian and bisexual people for the first time since 1996 – a stark reminder, supporters said, that as the public has come around to accepting gay rights, Congress has been slow to keep pace.
Senator Dean Heller of Nevada, one of the Republicans who voted to open debate, had announced Monday that he would vote yes on the bill, known as the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, saying that after conversations with voters at home and colleagues in the Senate, he had come to the determination that “supporting this legislation is the right thing to do.”
It is the first time that the full Senate has considered a measure that includes protection for transgender people.
The bill will face other crucial tests this week before the Senate can ultimately schedule a final vote to approve it, but the first filibuster test was a pivotal hurdle…”