Samuel Mehr joins us this week to share his perspective on why people are musical, where music comes from, and why it works the way it does. We discuss a number of empirical studies related to music and musical cognition, and dispense a few myths about music along the way. Some of Sam's work discussed in this episode include Music in the Home: New Evidence for an Intergenerational Link,Two randomized trials provide no consistent evidence for nonmusical cognitive benefits of brief preschool music enrichment, and Miscommunication of science: music cognition research in the popular press. Additional topics we discussed are also covered in a Harvard Gazette article featuring Sam titled Muting the Mozart effect. You can follow Sam on twitter via @samuelmehr.

This episode reviews the concept of k-d trees: an efficient data structure for holding multidimensional objects. Kyle gives Linhda a dictionary and asks her to look up words as a way of introducing the concept of binary search. We actually spend most of the episode talking about binary search before getting into k-d trees, but this is a necessary prerequisite.

Algorithms are pervasive in our society and make thousands of automated decisions on our behalf every day. The possibility of digital discrimination is a very real threat, and it is very plausible for discrimination to occur accidentally (i.e. outside the intent of the system designers and programmers). Christian Sandvig joins us in this episode to talk about his work and the concept of auditing algorithms. Christian Sandvig (@niftyc) has a PhD in communications from Stanford and is currently an Associate Professor of Communication Studies and Information at the University of Michigan. His research studies the predictable and unpredictable effects that algorithms have on culture. His work exploring the topic of auditing algorithms has framed the conversation of how and why we might want to have oversight on the way algorithms effect our lives. His writing appears in numerous publications including The Social Media Collective, The Huffington Post, and Wired. One of his papers we discussed in depth on this episode was Auditing Algorithms: Research Methods for Detecting Discrimination on Internet Platforms, which is well worth a read.

Today's episode begins by asking how many left handed employees we should expect to be at a company before anyone should claim left handedness discrimination. If not lefties, let's consider eye color, hair color, favorite ska band, most recent grocery store used, and any number of characteristics could be studied to look for deviations from the norm in a company. When multiple comparisons are to be made simultaneous, one must account for this, and a common method for doing so is with the Bonferroni Correction. It is not, however, a sure fire procedure, and this episode wraps up with a bit of skepticism about it.

A recent paper in the journal of Judgment and Decision Making titled On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound b**t explores empirical questions around a reader's ability to detect statements which may sound profound but are actually a collection of buzzwords that fail to contain adequate meaning or truth. These statements are definitively different from lies and nonesense, as we discuss in the episode. This paper proposes the B****t Receptivity scale (BSR) and empirically demonstrates that it correlates with existing metrics like the Cognitive Reflection Test, building confidence that this can be a useful, repeatable, empirical measure of a person's ability to detect pseudo-profound statements as being different from genuinely profound statements. Additionally, the correlative results provide some insight into possible root causes for why individuals might find great profundity in these statements based on other beliefs or cognitive measures. The paper's lead author Gordon Pennycook joins me to discuss this study's results. If you'd like some examples of pseudo-profound bullshit, you can randomly generate some based on Deepak Chopra's twitter feed. To read other work from Gordon, check out his Google Scholar page and find him on twitter via @GordonPennycook. And just for fun, if you think you've dreamed up a Data Skeptic related pseudo-profound bullshit statement, tweet it with hashtag #pseudoprofound. If I see an especially clever or humorous one, I might want to send you a free Data Skeptic sticker.

Today's mini episode discusses the widely known optimization algorithm gradient descent in the context of hiking in a foggy hillside.

This episode is a discussion of data visualization and a proposed New Year's resolution for Data Skeptic listeners. Let's kill the word cloud.

Today's episode is a reading of Isaac Asimov's The Machine that Won the War. I can't think of a story that's more appropriate for Data Skeptic.

In this interview with Aaron Halfaker of the Wikimedia Foundation, we discuss his research and career related to the study of Wikipedia. In his paper The Rise and Decline of an open Collaboration Community, he highlights a trend in the declining rate of active editors on Wikipedia which began in 2007. I asked Aaron about a variety of possible hypotheses for the phenomenon, in particular, how automated quality control tools that revert edits automatically could play a role. This lead Aaron and his collaborators to develop Snuggle, an optimized interface to help Wikipedians better welcome new comers to the community. We discuss the details of these topics as well as ORES, which provides revision scoring as a service to any software developer that wants to consume the output of their machine learning based scoring. You can find Aaron on Twitter as @halfak.

Today's topic is term frequency inverse document frequency, which is a statistic for estimating the importance of words and phrases in a set of documents.

Early astronomers could see several of the planets with the naked eye. The invention of the telescope allowed for further understanding of our solar system. The work of Isaac Newton allowed later scientists to accurately predict Neptune, which was later observationally confirmed exactly where predicted. It seemed only natural that a similar unknown body might explain anomalies in the orbit of Mercury, and thus began the search for the hypothesized planet Vulcan. Thomas Levenson's book "The Hunt for Vulcan" is a narrative of the key scientific minds involved in the search and eventual refutation of an unobserved planet between Mercury and the sun. Thomas joins me in this episode to discuss his book and the fascinating story of the quest to find this planet. During the discussion, we mention one of the contributions made by Urbain-Jean-Joseph Le Verrier which involved some complex calculations which enabled him to predict where to find the planet that would eventually be called Neptune. The calculus behind this work is difficult, and some of that work is demonstrated in a Jupyter notebook I recently discovered from Paulo Marques titled The-Body Problem. Thomas Levenson is a professor at MIT and head of its science writing program. He is the author of several books, including Einstein in Berlin and Newton and the Counterfeiter: The Unknown Detective Career of the World’s Greatest Scientist. He has also made ten feature-length documentaries (including a two-hour Nova program on Einstein) for which he has won numerous awards. In his most recent book "The Hunt for Vulcan", explores the century spanning quest to explain the movement of the cosmos via theory and the role the hypothesized planet Vulcan played in the story. Follow Thomas on twitter @tomlevenson and check out his blog athttps://inversesquare.wordpress.com/. Pick up your copy of The Hunt for Vulcan at your local bookstore, preferred book buying place, or at the Penguin Random House site.

Today's episode discusses the accuracy paradox. There are cases when one might prefer a less accurate model because it yields more predictive power or better captures the underlying causal factors describing the outcome variable you are interested in. This is especially relevant in machine learning when trying to predict rare events. We discuss how the accuracy paradox might apply if you were trying to predict the likelihood a person was a bird owner.

... or should this have been called data science from a neuroscientist's perspective? Either way, I'm sure you'll enjoy this discussion with Laurie Skelly. Laurie earned a PhD in Integrative Neuroscience from the Department of Psychology at the University of Chicago. In her life as a social neuroscientist, using fMRI to study the neural processes behind empathy and psychopathy, she learned the ropes of zooming in and out between the macroscopic and the microscopic -- how millions of data points come together to tell us something meaningful about human nature. She's currently at Metis Data Science, an organization that helps people learn the skills of data science to transition in industry. In this episode, we discuss fMRI technology, Laurie's research studying empathy and psychopathy, as well as the skills and tools used in common between neuroscientists and data scientists. For listeners interested in more on this subject, Laurie recommended the blogs Neuroskeptic, Neurocritic, and Neuroecology. We conclude the episode with a mention of the upcoming Metis Data Science San Francisco cohort which Laurie will be teaching. If anyone is interested in applying to participate, they can do so here.

A discussion of the expected number of cars at a stoplight frames today's discussion of the bias variance tradeoff. The central ideal of this concept relates to model complexity. A very simple model will likely generalize well from training to testing data, but will have a very high variance since it's simplicity can prevent it from capturing the relationship between the covariates and the output. As a model grows more and more complex, it may capture more of the underlying data but the risk that it overfits the training data and therefore does not generalize (is biased) increases. The tradeoff between minimizing variance and minimizing bias is an ongoing challenge for data scientists, and an important discussion for skeptics around how much we should trust models.

The recent opinion piece Big Data Doesn't Exist on Tech Crunch by Slater Victoroff is an interesting discussion about the usefulness of data both big and small. Slater joins me this episode to discuss and expand on this discussion. Slater Victoroff is CEO of indico Data Solutions, a company whose services turn raw text and image data into human insight. He, and his co-founders, studied at Olin College of Engineering where indico was born. indico was then accepted into the "Techstars Accelarator Program" in the Fall of 2014 and went on to raise $3M in seed funding. His recent essay "Big Data Doesn't Exist" received a lot of traction on TechCrunch, and I have invited Slater to join me today to discuss his perspective and touch on a few topics in the machine learning space as well.

The degree to which two variables change together can be calculated in the form of their covariance. This value can be normalized to the correlation coefficient, which has the advantage of transforming it to a unitless measure strictly bounded between -1 and 1. This episode discusses how we arrive at these values and why they are important.

Today's guest is Cameron Davidson-Pilon. Cameron has a masters degree in quantitative finance from the University of Waterloo. Think of it as statistics on stock markets. For the last two years he's been the team lead of data science at Shopify. He's the founder of dataoragami.net which produces screencasts teaching methods and techniques of applied data science. He's also the author of the just released in print book Bayesian Methods for Hackers: Probabilistic Programming and Bayesian Inference, which you can also get in a digital form. This episode focuses on the topic of Bayesian A/B Testing which spans just one chapter of the book. Related to today's discussion is the Data Origami post The class imbalance problem in A/B testing. Lastly, Data Skeptic will be giving away a copy of the print version of the book to one lucky listener who has a US based delivery address. To participate, you'll need to write a review of any site, book, course, or podcast of your choice on datasciguide.com. After it goes live, tweet a link to it with the hashtag #WinDSBook to be given an entry in the contest. This contest will end November 20th, 2015, at which time I'll draw a single randomized winner and contact them for delivery details via direct message on Twitter.

The central limit theorem is an important statistical result which states that typically, the mean of a large enough set of independent trials is approximately normally distributed.  This episode explores how this might be used to determine if an amazon parrot like Yoshi produces or or less waste than an African Grey, under the assumption that the individual distributions are not normal.

Today's guest is Chris Hofstader (@gonz_blinko), an accessibility researcher and advocate, as well as an activist for causes such as improving access to information for blind and vision impaired people. His background in computer programming enabled him to be the leader of JAWS, a Windows program that allowed people with a visual impairment to read their screen either through text-to-speech or a refreshable braille display. He's the Managing Member of 3 Mouse Technology. He's also a frequent blogger primarily at chrishofstader.com. For web developers and site owners, Chris recommends two tools to help test for accessibility issues: tenon.io and dqtech.co. A guest post from Chris appeared on the Skepchick blogged titled Skepticism and Disability which lead to the formation of the sister site Skeptibility. In a discussion of skepticism and favorite podcasts, Chris mentioned a number of great shows, most notably The Pod Delusion to which he was a contributor. Additionally, Chris has also appeared on The Atheist Nomads. Lastly, a shout out from Chris to musician Shelley Segal whom he hosted just before the date of recording of this episode. Her music can be found on her site or via bandcamp.

The multi-armed bandit problem is named with reference to slot machines (one armed bandits). Given the chance to play from a pool of slot machines, all with unknown payout frequencies, how can you maximize your reward? If you knew in advance which machine was best, you would play exclusively that machine. Any strategy less than this will, on average, earn less payout, and the difference can be called the "regret". You can try each slot machine to learn about it, which we refer to as exploration. When you've spent enough time to be convinced you've identified the best machine, you can then double down and exploit that knowledge. But how do you best balance exploration and exploitation to minimize the regret of your play? This mini-episode explores a few examples including restaurant selection and A/B testing to discuss the nature of this problem. In the end we touch briefly on Thompson sampling as a solution.

Our episode this week begins with a correction. Back in episode 28 (Monkeys on Typewriters), Kyle made some bold claims about the probability that monkeys banging on typewriters might produce the entire works of Shakespeare by chance. The proof shown in the show notes turned out to be a bit dubious and Dave Spiegel joins us in this episode to set the record straight. In addition to that, our discussion explores a number of interesting topics in astronomy and astrophysics. This includes a paper Dave wrote with Ed Turner titled "Bayesian analysis of the astrobiological implications of life's early emergence on Earth" as well as exoplanet discovery.

There are several factors that are important to selecting an appropriate sample size and dealing with small samples. The most important questions are around representativeness - how well does your sample represent the total population and capture all it's variance? Linhda and Kyle talk through a few examples including elections, picking an Airbnb, produce selection, and home shopping as examples of cases in which the amount of observations one has are more or less important depending on how complex the underlying system one is observing is.

There's an old adage which says you cannot fit a model which has more parameters than you have data. While this is often the case, it's not a universal truth. Today's guest Jake VanderPlas explains this topic in detail and provides some excellent examples of when it holds and doesn't. Some excellent visuals articulating the points can be found on Jake's blog Pythonic Perambulations, specifically on his post The Model Complexity Myth. We also touch on Jake's work as an astronomer, his noteworthy open source contributions, and forthcoming book (currently available in an Early Edition) Python Data Science Handbook.

There are many occasions in which one might want to know the distance or similarity between two things, for which the means of calculating that distance is not necessarily clear. The distance between two points in Euclidean space is generally straightforward, but what about the distance between the top of Mount Everest to the bottom of the ocean? What about the distance between two sentences? This mini-episode summarizes some of the considerations and a few of the means of calculating distance. We touch on Jaccard Similarity, Manhattan Distance, and a few others.

ContentMine is a project which provides the tools and workflow to convert scientific literature into machine readable and machine interpretable data in order to facilitate better and more effective access to the accumulated knowledge of human kind. The program's founder Peter Murray-Rust joins us this week to discuss ContentMine. Our discussion covers the project, the scientific publication process, copywrite, and several other interesting topics.