Difference between revisions of "Talk:2755: Effect Size"
(Hi everyone!) |
(→Wasn't something like this actually done?: new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--> | <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--> | ||
Wow, it looks like I'm first![[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.40|162.158.146.40]] 16:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC) | Wow, it looks like I'm first![[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.40|162.158.146.40]] 16:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Wasn't something like this actually done? == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Robert Sapolsky mentions an obscure paper that actually did something like this. They did a meta-analysis of the average reported error throughout various disciplines in order of the physical size of the objects being studied (e.g., from cells to organs to etc.), and found no correlation between them. The conclusion was that this was evidence that philosophical reductionism was flawed. [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 22:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:45, 27 March 2023
Wow, it looks like I'm first!162.158.146.40 16:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Wasn't something like this actually done?
Robert Sapolsky mentions an obscure paper that actually did something like this. They did a meta-analysis of the average reported error throughout various disciplines in order of the physical size of the objects being studied (e.g., from cells to organs to etc.), and found no correlation between them. The conclusion was that this was evidence that philosophical reductionism was flawed. Fephisto (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
