All Posts

Sorted by Magic (New & Upvoted)

Wednesday, January 15th 2020
Wed, Jan 15th 2020

Shortform [Beta]
2Ramiro7d So, I saw Vox's article on how air filters create huge educational gains [https://www.vox.com/2020/1/8/21051869/indoor-air-pollution-student-achievement] ; I'm particularly surprised that indoor air quality (actually, indoor environmental conditions) is kinda neglected everywhere (except, maybe, in dagerous jobs). But then I saw this (convincing) critique [https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/01/09/no-i-dont-think-that-this-study-offers-good-evidence-that-installing-air-filters-in-classrooms-has-surprisingly-large-educational-benefits/] of the underlying paper. It seems to me that this is a suitable case for a blind RCT: you could install fake air filters in order to control for placebo effects, etc. But then I googled a little bit... and I haven't found significant studies using blind RCTs in social sciences and similar cases. I wonder why; at least for these cases, it doesn't seem more unethical or harder to do it than in medical trials.