←back to thread

308 points tangjurine | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Aurornis ◴[] No.43529859[source]
I'm all for installing air filters in classrooms for a number of reasons, but I also think the extreme results from this study aren't going to hold up to further research.

From the paper:

> To do so, I leverage a unique setting arising from the largest gas leak in United States history, whereby the offending gas company installed air filters in every classroom, office and common area for all schools within five miles of the leak (but not beyond). This variation allows me to compare student achievement in schools receiving air filters relative to those that did not using a spatial regression discontinuity design.

In other words, the paper looked at test scores at different schools in different areas on different years and assumed that the only change was the air filters. Anyone who has worked with school kids knows that the variations between classes from year to year can be extreme, as can differences produced by different teachers or even school policies.

Again, I think air filtration is great indoors, but expecting test scores to improve dramatically like this is not realistic. This feels like another extremely exaggerated health claim, like past claims made about fish oil supplements. Fish oil was briefly thought to have extreme positive health benefits from a number of very small studies like this, but as sample sizes became larger and studies became higher quality, most of the beneficial effects disappeared.

replies(13): >>43529891 #>>43529985 #>>43530174 #>>43530203 #>>43530314 #>>43530415 #>>43530679 #>>43530828 #>>43530901 #>>43531102 #>>43531116 #>>43532636 #>>43538480 #
mmooss ◴[] No.43530174[source]
Based on your comment, the effect could be larger as well as smaller.

All research is met on HN by people who know better and will tell you why it's flawed. There isn't a greater collection of expertise in the history of the world than on HN.

Edit: I meant to add: What value can we find in this research? It wasn't published as scripture, the perfect answer to all our problems. It's one study of some interesting events and data; what can we get out of it?

replies(10): >>43530276 #>>43530609 #>>43530654 #>>43530786 #>>43531037 #>>43531093 #>>43532558 #>>43532696 #>>43537762 #>>43540444 #
bawolff ◴[] No.43530276[source]
Science succeeds when people lean towards the side of cynicism instead of optimism. Scientific research should be read critically.
replies(1): >>43530320 #
mmooss ◴[] No.43530320[source]
Critical thinking and skepticism are good, but much of what happens on HN is not that.

Thinking critically includes, most of all, finding value - you need to think critically (and skeptically) to avoid assigning value to things that don't have it, but you must find value. The goal is to build knowledge - just like the study author needs to find knowledge among flawed data, you must find knowledge among flawed studies - and they are all flawed, of course.

Focusing on the flaws and trying to shoot down everything is just craven recreation.

replies(4): >>43530762 #>>43530932 #>>43531176 #>>43531612 #
Jensson ◴[] No.43530762[source]
> Focusing on the flaws and trying to shoot down everything is just craven recreation.

No, its a valuable job to find flaws because its much easier to fix and work on known flaws than to stumble in the dark.

Removing flaws and problems is one of the easiest ways to add value.

replies(1): >>43531229 #
1. mmooss ◴[] No.43531229[source]
It's not valuable. People who do this at work are people who have no value to offer so they try to sound smart (and valuable) by finding flaws in someone else's work. All work is limited and flawed - it's easy to find them. Add the common hyperbolic statements on HN dismissing the entire study or whole fields of research, and it's misinformation.

The real significance is that things like sample size, to pick a common example here, is easy to understand in a theoretical way and so people apply it to the actual (not theoretical) practice of real research, which they don't understand the practicalities of, and also they overemphasize it because that's pretty much all they understand.

The first thing they look at in a paper is sample size - and hey, now sometimes they have something to 'contribute'! It's just reinforcing the same misunderstandings in others.

It sucks, a little, to have nothing to contribute, but it's a great opportunity to learn from people who do know.