/r/ - miscellaneous

>>323
Your question is too general. To know what makes a good study or if the methodology is proper you would have to understand the problem, so you would have to be educated in that field. If you want to understand the statistical measures, then you should read a book on statistics. If you want to understand a specific application of it, then I guess you would have to specify what you want if you want to receive meaningful advice. What kind of papers do you want to evaluate?

>>324
I don't want to do a detailed review, just to get some overall picture of how significant(?) the data is and how well it supports the conclusions. I've heard that people have a tendency to inflate their findings to get more funding. I'm interested in studies about learning.

In my opinion this is most relevant literature concerning this subject.

pt.1

pt2

>>327
>>328
Thank you, that's a lot of pages. Should I read them in the order they were posted?

>>330

These are some fundamental books on methodology of scientific research (I missed popper though which is sort of important). I did this course in college and this is primary literature in syllabus. We have read individual parts from each of this books and we did one complete reading of our choice. You have to know some basics of logic and mathematics to fully understand material.

Kolmogorov and Edwint T. Jaynes - probability, statistics (edwin is secondary since theres things like bayes theorem that kolgomorov dosent cover)
Nelson Goodman, David Hume - induction and problems of induction, philosophy of science
Karl Popper (not posted) - demarcation
Thomas Kuhn (not posted) - sort of criticism of popper

I recommend that you look at specific chapters and find things that interest you - since reading everything might be overwhelming.