Der Autor der Verschwörungstheorie-Studie gibt zu, dass er nicht rechnen kann, und die Studie falsch ist
Basic mathematical flaw in the methods section
There's a basic mathematical flaw in the methods section of this paper, which renders all the results based on varying numbers of conspirators incorrect. (The results for fixed conspiracy sizes are not affected by this flaw.)
Equation (1) describes a Poisson process with fixed failure rate phi. Equation (2) describes a varying failure rate phi(t), except in the special case where N(t)=N_0. Equation (3) substitutes this varying failure rate into an equation which assumes a fixed failure rate. You can't do that, and the result is nonsense. In effect this equation assumes that the varying probability of failure is equal to the end-time probability of failure, that is the lowest probability at any point in the process.
The easiest way to see that the result is nonsense is to look at the failure curves in figure (1). By definition these failure curves must be monotonic. This is most easily seen by plotting 1-L, the survival fraction, which MUST be monotonic downwards. In medical terms the non-monotonic curves correspond to a situation where dead patients spring back into life if you wait long enough.
RE: Basic mathematical flaw in the methods section
That's an interesting and useful point - if phi is non-constant, then some form of in-homogeneous Poisson process or Markov process would better capture the probability of failure. As you mention, this doesn't arise when N(t) = No which was the form used in the results and conclusions. As you point out in your excellent and helpful observation, the from used for varying phi(t) in the paper (for decreasing conspirator populations) tends to understate the probability of failure for such populations. I'd be keen to look at this a little further when I'm back from annual leave and have a bit more time; it would be nice to quantify it. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Competing interests declared: Author of the paper
(Quelle: PLOS One)
Siehe auch Thomas' Kritik, die auf genau dasselbe abzielt. Die Argumentation des Autors, das sei alles nicht so schlimm, ist jedoch für mich nicht nachvollziehbar. Sie ist peinlich.
publiziert Tue, 02 Feb 2016 19:11:23 +0100 #propaganda #pseudowissenschaft #wissenschaft