Science and Engineering: Innovation, Research, Education and Economics
June 19, 2007
Mistakes in Experimental Design and Interpretation

Mistakes in Experimental Design and Interpretation:

Humans are very good at detecting patterns, but rather poor at detecting randomness. We expect random incidents of cancer to be spread homogeneously, when in fact true randomness results in random clusters, not homogeneity. It is a mistake for an experiment to consider a pool of 47,000 possibilities, and then only report on the 7 cases that seem interesting.

A proper experiment states its hypothesis before gathering evidence and then puts the hypothesis to the test. Remember when you did your seventh grade science fair experiment: you made up a hypothesis first (”Hamsters will get fatter from eating Lucky Charms than Wheaties”) and then did the experiment to confirm or refute the hypothesis. You can’t just make up a hypothesis after the fact to fit the data.

This is an excellent article discussing very common errors in how people use data. We have tendencies that lead us to draw faulty conclusions from data. Given that it is important to understand what common mistakes are made to help us counter the natural tendencies.

Related: Seeing Patterns Where None Exists - Illusions, Optical and Other - Understanding Data - Dangers of Forgetting the Proxy Nature of Data - How to Deal with False Research Findings - descriptive “theory” and normative theory

Leave a Reply

Curious Cat Science and Engineering Blog © curiouscat.com 2005-2008 powered by WordPress
Curious Cat Alumni Connections

Internal Links

Author

 

John Hunter

Categories

Other

Search Blog

Web Search

Science and Engineering web search

Archives

June 2007
M T W T F S S
« May   Jul »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Translate to

Translate to German Translate to Japanese Translate to Chinese Translate to South Korean Translate to Spanish Translate to French