Yes indeed. I thought people here, especially those connected to CFAR, might find it interesting. Critical thinking is only one part of rationality training of course, but its is a very useful one.
I can be, though I'll want to be heading to Seattle around that time. No restrictions on travel really except I'd like to be in LA within two weeks of New Year.
I'll be in Vancouver for New Year and shortly afterwards - any meetups planned for that time?
No problem. Sent him a message, hopefully he has time!
I actually know one of the guys working on it - I could ask him to come over here if you like.
Note for following meetups - I'll be in Seattle in early January, would be good to meet some of you!
Not sure for this trip; I'm mostly going West from Detroit, and I'll be back in the States (to NYC) next year but probably not heading to DC. All plans can change however!
Nice! I'm actually doing something similar in December, bussing though various cities in the States (thread at http://lesswrong.com/lw/e9t/the_wandering_rationalist/) before going, mildly ironically, to Australia. I actually think I'm going to be in Austin around the same time as you, though not for as long. I'll be reposting my message with dates shortly.
It's not necessary to have them completely performed and controlled by a third party - but the idea is if you want to do a drug trial, you sign up with an independent register saying which drug you're testing and what your methodology is. Then when the trial is done, you must report your results publicly.
That stops companies hiding negative trials and only publishing positive ones. It doesn't stop the data being manipulated, but that's another problem.
Nice article. Much of psychology suffers from the failure to replicate experiments, for various reasons like funding, time pressure, and difficulties in obtaining the population required. I've worked in sensorimotor control for several years and recently some researchers have come up with the idea of putting together a database of studies on perturbations during reaching (which is a very widely used paradigm) because they can so often be divergent due to tiny changes in the experiments.
I'd love to see more of this kind of thing in psychology in general, just as I'd like to see registration of medical trials from pharmaceutical companies (with both negative and positive results published) to avoid the all-too pervasive publication bias.