I’ve hit “send” on the final manuscript files for my popular science book on biophysics. The last round of revisions and edits took all the time I could spare over the past three months, and lots of time that I couldn’t! I should write a new, up to date summary of the book, but this … Continue reading Pop-Science Biophysics, now with a title!
It’s again time for The Year in Books! (Previous posts: 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, and 2015.) 2020 was challenging in many ways. One consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic was the difficulty of getting books, very minor of course compared to many misfortunes both personal and global, but annoying nonetheless. The Eugene Public Library has been … Continue reading The Year in Books, 2020
A while ago I announced that I’ve been working on a popular science book about biophysics, and a few months ago I noted that the first draft is done. Since people have asked about the present state of the book, I thought I’d make a quick post about it. Princeton University Press sent the manuscript … Continue reading Book Update: Untitled Biophysics
This week: the last of my commentaries on Makin and Orban de Xivry’s Common Statistical Mistakes! (Previous posts: #1-2, #3 , #4, #5, #6, #7, #8.) I’m lumping together comments on “Mistake #9” (Over-interpreting non-significant results) and “Mistake #10” (Correlation and causation), as well as concluding remarks, writing one long post instead of two or … Continue reading Comments on over-interpreting results, correlation and causation, and concluding remarks — “Ten common statistical mistakes…” #9-10
This week’s installment of comments on Makin and Orban de Xivry’s Common Statistical Mistakes deals with #8: Failure to Correct for Multiple Comparisons. (Previous posts: #1-2, #3 , #4, #5, #6, #7.) Makin and Orban de Xivry’s description is rather complex, but the error is a simple one. To illustrate: suppose we have a control … Continue reading Comments on “Failure to Correct for Multiple Comparisons” — “Ten common statistical mistakes…” #8
This week’s commentary on Makin and Orban de Xivry’s Common Statistical Mistakes covers #7: Flexibility of Analysis: p-Hacking. (Previous posts: #1-2, #3 , #4, #5, #6.) I feel like this has been discussed ad nauseum,* yet the problem still exists. The issue is that flexibility in how one analyzes data, even seemingly innocuous flexibility, can … Continue reading Comments on “p-Hacking (Flexibility of Analysis)” — “Ten common statistical mistakes…” #7
Next in our series of commentaries on Makin and Orban de Xivry’s Common Statistical Mistakes, #6: Circular Analysis. (Previous posts: #1-2, #3 , #4, #5.) I was thinking of skipping this one entirely. It’s less dramatic than #5 or the upcoming #7, I’m not sure I fully understand the authors’ intent, and my seashore painting … Continue reading Comments on “Circular Analysis” — “Ten common statistical mistakes…” #6
The microscopic world is deeply unintuitive, in large part due to the incessant randomness of Brownian motion. I was reminded of this when a colleague (Ben McMorran) pointed me to the timely topic of face masks and the physics that governs how they work. (Ben is collecting readings on this subject to discuss with undergraduates.) … Continue reading Physics, Face Masks, and a Fun Exercise
Continuing our series of commentaries on Makin and Orban de Xivry’s article on common Statistical Mistakes, let’s look at #5: Small Samples. (Previous posts: #1-2, #3 , #4.) This issue is simple but profound, and its prevalence is, I’ll argue, tied to more fundamental problems with how we do science. The mistake: drawing conclusions from … Continue reading Comments on “Small Samples” — “Ten common statistical mistakes…” #5
Continuing our series — see here for Part 1, and Part 2 — let’s look at Makin and Orban de Xivry’s Statistical Mistake #4: Spurious Correlations. This one is easy to understand, though nonetheless common. The authors refer to situations like the one illustrated in their Figure 2, shown below, in which the correlation calculated … Continue reading Comments on “Ten common statistical mistakes…”: #4
