[bcdarwin]

I'm not saying it isn't true, just that it's not statistically supported by the evidence presented in the paper.

You can invent post hoc justifications for almost any positive conclusion (although this one is weak since the authors admit the effect cannot be detected in individuals, only in aggregate).

[edit: you can even p-hack and retroactively justify your way to entire subfields; see famously https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/05/07/5-httlpr-a-pointed-rev...]

[dumpsterdiver]

> I'm not saying it isn't true, just that it's not statistically supported by the evidence presented in the paper.

I hate to be that guy, but imo practical statistics are a joke. The samples are tainted and biased, and the results have nothing to do with the population at large.

[jolincost]

Are you sure about that, tho? Can you prove that it's actually a p-hack? You can level the accusation, but how do you go about substantiating it? I'd like to see the numbers and the data, not bombast.

[thatcat]

It's actually up to the paper to prove that it's not a p-hack. That's done by declaring a null hypothesis and the intended stats analysis to be done before doing the experiment and collecting the data, because otherwise you can just compare arbitrary things until you find that some of them are correlated in the set you have. There's no numerical post-hoc analysis that would be able to prove that.

[bcdarwin]

Exactly - a p-hack is a form of misreporting, so isn't easy to detect at the level of individual studies.

However, p-hacking isn't the only threat to replicability: in this case the authors have reported a large set of tests, so we can ask why they didn't control family-wise error via Bonferroni or friends (in which case the reported statistical significance almost certainly disappears). Also, I suspect if you fit Bayesian models (either separately or a hierarchical model) using reasonably narrow priors based on what we know about human sensitivity to magnetic fields, how much other senses are affected by sex differences, hunger, etc., and not starting each test assuming a complete state of ignorance of the world, then the data would be compatible with no effect.

[jolincost]

Is it really tho? Up to the paper to prove it's not something you say it is? I don't think so. The paper is what it is. If you claim it's fake, you need to make evidence for that. Not just launch lazy accusations. Seriously, what is what you said, if not just a lazy dismissal (oh it must be a p-hack)? And you're content with that?

That's not science. They went to the trouble. If you're going to just dismiss it, and claim that's valid, you should go to the trouble to do science on that hypothesis you have. Thanks, friend! :P ;) xx

[throwaway2245]

In this case, the researchers admit and indicate they are doing multiple tests, but have not then done a multiple testing correction.

That's not even really a "p-hack" (where you hide that you have done multiple tests, in order to avoid a multiple testing correction and to report only the positive results): it's simply a p-mistake.

What they have said is statistically incorrect, judged on its own merits. Their conclusion is not supported by the research they have done.

[f430]

I mean just because the statistics don't satiate your standards doesn't exclude the possibility of being sensitive to GMF.

In mammals, this is what guides birds to migrate. We really need to stop treating the Earth like its just a magnetic rock. It's far more than that and the earth undergoes these field changes every interval with profound impact on life on earth.

You and I are all made out of Earth and the things we eat and breathe are all Earth itself. When you die your body decomposes and it becomes soil and nutrients for plants which in turn feed the ecology which where our food comes from. So its hard pressed to just dismiss this as "spiritual pseudoscience". It is precisely this type of shallow thinking in Western ideology that is responsible for the global climate crisis. Your culture has thoroguhly destroyed earth and the next generation will pay the price because of your ignorance.

There's just no way that we can brush off this phenomena with pedantry.

edit: HN has a serious pedantry problem. Anything that challenges conventional wisdom is villified and attacked by nitpicking minor details that many only have surface level understanding. There is no p-hacking here, overwhelming portion of the samples shows the said sensitivity described qualitatively and quantitatively.

[KMag]

> HN has a serious pedantry problem. Anything that challenges conventional wisdom is villified and attacked

I think you're being downvoted because you've misinterpreted the GP as saying a proposition is untrue ("exclude the possibility"), when the GP is just saying this study isn't evidence either way. Then you went on a pseudoscientific naturalistic tangential rant.

You seem to be claiming that denying this study is evidence either way shows an over-reliance on statistics. Furthermore, this over-reliance on statistics is a myopia particular to Western culture. This over-reliance on statistical significance has lead to poor environmental policy (with some thrown in hints toward naturalistic fallacy arguments). Am I understanding your argument correctly?

I would argue that the major problem with environmental policy in the U.S. is that it under-values statistically significant studies.

Fetishization of non-Western and pre-modern cultures isn't helpful. There are plenty of environmental disasters in both Asia and Africa. Slash-and-burn agriculture predates history, and Rio Tinto shows environmental damage from mining operations 5,000 years ago, so 'reject Western culture" and "just return to the old ways" aren't sufficient as a basis for environmental policy. (My apologies if you weren't hinting at a return to pre-modern practices. I know you didn't mention anything about ancient peoples, but I got a feeling that's where this discussion is headed and wanted to cut one round-trip out of the conversation.)

What would you propose as an alternative basis for environmental policy, if not studies of statistical significance?

[bcdarwin]

I am not claiming that the possibility is excluded, just that it is not demonstrated here.

> In mammals, this is what guides birds to migrate. It's far more than that and the earth undergoes these field changes every interval with profound impact on life on earth.

> You and I are all made out of Earth and the things we eat and breathe are all Earth itself. There's just no way that we can brush off this phenomena with pedantry.

I agree that biology is profound, but pseudoscientific generalities like this confuse rather than clarify. [Likely typo: birds are not mammals.]

[folli]

I don't think humans are considered a crepuscular or nocturnal species. Furthermore, birds are not mammals.

[KMag]

To be fair, the GP may have been claiming that mammals sense magnetic fields and then the mammals guide avian migrations. The sentence is ambiguous ("In mammals, this is what guides birds ..."). This kind of fits with their whole "all of nature is one. The Force is created by all life and flows through and binds all things" vibe of the GP's post.

[anticensor]

Crepuscular or nocturnal humans do exist.