Dear physicists, I need your help to moderate a post I received a few days ago in my G+ Philosophy community.

==================
The post starts here (verbatim).
==================

I'm trying to get CERN to use the LHC for a modern particle physics equivalent of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Sent it to the Council Secretariat earlier this week, haven't heard anything yet so may need the publication route.
And I've been brewing on some ideas concerning black holes for a few years.
Still, it would be great to do something like this at the LHC and some of the reasons are explained below.

I'm going to write this proposal in a more scholarly form for publication.
As it should be of great interest for the philosophy of physics. Not to mention the relevance for philosophy of science and mathematics.
That an agenda with promise of a zero result is a good test
for the integrity and methods -- any unknowns that may be hidden by
bias given the nature of building a system that primarily studies noise. Systematic errors is one thing --- systematic human errors another.
And so is the complications from adhering to working theories with
so much unknown.

There is a myriad of theories that deal with space as a variable.
Any form of direction or a experimental zero-proof would settle
many arguments revolving fundamental premises of particle physics.

By actively saying one should do PbPb for one year, and specifically:
That our orientation around the sun related to milky way is the focus of study to look for any space-time effect on any particle. This is not a narrow search in any one area of interest to physics. PbPb as the best option for the amount of tracks and chances for increasing accuracy with more particles of the same type per event. It should be of interest to look at other physics opportunities that would
fit within these run parameters.

It would requires careful consideration of velocity and distance in an angular trajectory for all types of particles over a long period of time.
The influence could be very faint and the more accurately measured to zero, the better an argument theoreticians have for venues in mathematical physics.
In addition to being a good calibration test for the experiments involved.
Of utmost interest is if force carriers may be influenced, and if it will be an expected zero result or if folds or pockets in space discussed for the very small also applies to the very large as is expected.

I've worked at CERN full time in the past, and part time until Desc. 2016.
Sort of dropped out of cognitive sciences with a desire for a philosophy specialisation in 2010.

==================
The post ends here.
==================

I Believe that the gentleman who has authored that post also posted it in this community as well and he is probably reading this post too.

For the life of me, I cannot make sense of what was said in that post. I wonder if any of you can kindly show me the right direction and, if possible, answer a few of the following questions;

1- What does it say, for Zeus’ sake? Can someone translate the relevant parts into English?
2- Is it really physics or a word-salad?
3- Does this have anything to do with philosophy of physics or philosophy of science?
4- Does this have anything to do with philosophy of anything?
5- How would you, particle physicists, have commented had it been posted in this community?

The author of the post seems to suggest that this is philosophy because he has not formulated it into a mathematical language yet. I disagree with that argument. If that was a valid criterion, then anything that is not mathematics should be labelled as philosophy, which is simply false.

To me, it sounds like one of those machine-generated essays created by mischievous journalists to pull scientific journals’ legs. I cannot understand a word of it.

The author also suggested that it is too complicated for us to understand, unless we are particle physicists, so he asked us, philosophers, to stay clear of the discussion in the comments if we cannot comprehend the contents.

Well, if it is posted in a philosophy community, shouldn’t philosophers understand at least a few sentences out of the main claims?

What are your thoughts?

p-hacking

1. Stop collecting data once p<.o5
2. Analyze many measures, but report only those with p<.o5
3. Collect and analyze many conditions, but only report those with p<.o5
4. Use covariates to get p<.o5
5. Exclude participants to get p<.o5
6. Transform the data to get p<.o5

~ Arthur Charpentier

[Source: https://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/19817]

Dear physicists, I need your help to moderate a post I received a few days ago in my G+ Philosophy community.

==================
The post starts here (verbatim).
==================

I'm trying to get CERN to use the LHC for a modern particle physics equivalent of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Sent it to the Council Secretariat earlier this week, haven't heard anything yet so may need the publication route.
And I've been brewing on some ideas concerning black holes for a few years.
Still, it would be great to do something like this at the LHC and some of the reasons are explained below.

I'm going to write this proposal in a more scholarly form for publication.
As it should be of great interest for the philosophy of physics. Not to mention the relevance for philosophy of science and mathematics.
That an agenda with promise of a zero result is a good test
for the integrity and methods -- any unknowns that may be hidden by
bias given the nature of building a system that primarily studies noise. Systematic errors is one thing --- systematic human errors another.
And so is the complications from adhering to working theories with
so much unknown.

There is a myriad of theories that deal with space as a variable.
Any form of direction or a experimental zero-proof would settle
many arguments revolving fundamental premises of particle physics.

By actively saying one should do PbPb for one year, and specifically:
That our orientation around the sun related to milky way is the focus of study to look for any space-time effect on any particle. This is not a narrow search in any one area of interest to physics. PbPb as the best option for the amount of tracks and chances for increasing accuracy with more particles of the same type per event. It should be of interest to look at other physics opportunities that would
fit within these run parameters.

It would requires careful consideration of velocity and distance in an angular trajectory for all types of particles over a long period of time.
The influence could be very faint and the more accurately measured to zero, the better an argument theoreticians have for venues in mathematical physics.
In addition to being a good calibration test for the experiments involved.
Of utmost interest is if force carriers may be influenced, and if it will be an expected zero result or if folds or pockets in space discussed for the very small also applies to the very large as is expected.

I've worked at CERN full time in the past, and part time until Desc. 2016.
Sort of dropped out of cognitive sciences with a desire for a philosophy specialisation in 2010.

==================
The post ends here.
==================

The gentleman who has authored that post might have also posted/shared it in this community as well, I am not sure.

For the life of me, I cannot make sense of what was said in that post. I wonder if any of you can kindly show me the right direction and, if possible, answer a few of the following questions;

1- What does it say, for Zeus’ sake? Can someone translate the relevant parts into English?
2- Is it really physics or a word-salad?
3- Does this have anything to do with philosophy of physics or philosophy of science?
4- Does this have anything to do with philosophy of anything?
5- How would you, particle physicists, have commented had it been posted in this community?

The author of the post seems to suggest that this is philosophy because he has not formulated it into a mathematical language yet. I disagree with that argument. If that was a valid criterion, then anything that is not mathematics should be labelled as philosophy, which is simply false.

To me, it sounds like one of those machine-generated essays created by mischievous journalists to pull scientific journals’ legs. I cannot understand a word of it.

The author also suggested that it is too complicated for us to understand, unless we are particle physicists, so he asked us, philosophers, to stay clear of the discussion in the comments if we cannot comprehend the contents.

Well, if it is posted in a philosophy community, shouldn’t philosophers understand at least a few sentences out of the main claims?

What are your thoughts?

“What clues were the traders looking for? Some said that they considered a study’s sample size: Small studies will more likely produce false positives than bigger ones. Some looked at a common statistical metric called the P value. If a result has a P value that’s less than 0.05, it’s said to be statistically significant, or positive. And if a study contains lots of P values that just skate under this threshold, it’s a possible sign that the authors committed “p-hacking”—that is, they futzed with their experiment or their data until they got “positive” but potentially misleading results. Signs like this can be ambiguous, and “scientists are usually reluctant to lob around claims of p-hacking when they see them,” says Sanjay Srivastava from the University of Oregon. “But if you are just quietly placing bets, those are things you’d look at.

[...]

But Ledgerwood notes that the prediction markets worked because they relied on a crowd of people making judgements as a collective. “These findings don’t mean we can each individually forecast with a crystal ball whether a given study result will replicate,” she says. “It would be a mistake to conclude that individuals can predict scientific truths with great accuracy based on their gut.””

[...]

“The 62-percent success rate from the SSRP, though higher, is still galling to Vazire, since the project specifically looked at the two most prestigious journals in the world. “We should not treat publication in Science or Nature to be a mark of a particularly robust finding or a particularly skilled researcher,” she says. These journals “are not especially good at picking out really robust findings or excellent research practices. And the prediction market adds to my frustration because it shows that there are clues to the strength of the evidence in the papers themselves.”

If prediction-market participants could collectively identify reliable results, why couldn’t the scientists who initially reviewed those papers, or the journal editors who decided to publish them? “Maybe they’re not looking at the right things,” says Vazire. “They probably put too-little weight on markers of replicability, and too much on irrelevant factors, including the prestige of the authors or their institution.””

https://web.archive.org/web/20180830000819/https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/scientists-can-collectively-sense-which-psychology-studies-are-weak/568630/