So far, nothing about the Open Science movement has convinced me that Philip Mirowski was wrong when he wrote this:
“Almost everyone is enthusiastic that ‘open science’ is the wave of the future. Yet when one looks seriously at the flaws in modern science that the movement proposes to remedy, the prospect for improvement in at least four areas are unimpressive. This suggests that the agenda is effectively to re-engineer science along the lines of platform capitalism, under the misleading banner of opening up science to the masses.”
"A 5-sigma intervention is one with an estimated average treatment effect that passes a well-stated statistical test with a p-value of less than 1 in a million."
I would add that it has to pass it under the conditions which do not deviate drastically from the assumptions under which the test is derived.
So far, nothing about the Open Science movement has convinced me that Philip Mirowski was wrong when he wrote this:
“Almost everyone is enthusiastic that ‘open science’ is the wave of the future. Yet when one looks seriously at the flaws in modern science that the movement proposes to remedy, the prospect for improvement in at least four areas are unimpressive. This suggests that the agenda is effectively to re-engineer science along the lines of platform capitalism, under the misleading banner of opening up science to the masses.”
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0306312718772086
Mirowski never misses.
How is human-facing science defined?
Yes, I deliberately left that open to interpretation. How would you define it?
Simplest definition seems to be the setting in which the intervention is applied to the human (this definition seems to include economics)
I have in mind a big tent that includes medicine, psychology, political science, economics, and human-computer interaction.
How does one quantify the ATE for interventions applied in the last three settings?
"A 5-sigma intervention is one with an estimated average treatment effect that passes a well-stated statistical test with a p-value of less than 1 in a million."
I would add that it has to pass it under the conditions which do not deviate drastically from the assumptions under which the test is derived.
Absolutely, but in this post I even cut them slack on this very important clause!