[old scientist, pointing at some data] After decades of research, thousands of experiments, a massive amount of peer reviewing, we can finally confidently conclude...
[smug dude with a ridiculous hairstyle] Uh yeah, but this TikTok by PatriotEagle1776 says your research is wrong
I'd honestly expect the TikToker to be called SiegHeil1488 or something like that by this point.
That's his X
Did they account for X, Y, Z?
What about all my personal anecodotes!
OMG this was just a survey? HOW IN THE WORLD COULD YOU EVER TELL IF SOMEONE LIED!?
Researchers who already thought of all this and it's in the study: -_-
Tbf, research based on a survey is much less valuable than a double blind randomized study
You might need a larger sample, and sometimes a blind study is just not possible.
Even then, the error bars are usually huge. If we're talking about cigarette smoke causing lung cancer (which has a relative risk increase of 10,000%) then those error bars aren't an issue. But if you're surveying people for their diet over the past 30 years to connect to colon cancer and you gey a relative risk increase of ~5℅ then the whole thing should be thrown out because the error bars are more like +- 100%
Thus the larger sample, to get something statistically significant. Which might not be practical due to cost.
Some methods suck no matter how much data you throw at it.
The study I was referencing had thousands of people taking their survey and the data quality was terrible because that's what you get when asking people to recall what they ate over the past 20-30 years. Adding yet more people to the study won't clean up the data and would start adding enough cost that it'd be cheaper to do close observation studies of 100 people and woupd actually achieve usable results.
The general guidelines on epidemiological studies (which both of my examples are) is that you cannot draw conclusions from a relative risk increase less than 100%.
So please stop with the blanket statement of "more data means better results". It's not true, and it's the same claim that AI tech bros keep making to fleece gullible investors
More data does mean better results.
More data does mean better results.
So when I can't get a useful trendline on a graph of % of redheads born per number of bananas eaten by the mother, you're saying it's because I didn't collect enough data? Why didn't I think of that?
karl marx
Like the username would be PatriotEagle1776 instead of PatriotEagle1488.
This needs updating - it's all about whatever AI is dominating... ...this week.
(Or whatever Musk has done to Grok lately.)
I love how this gag has grown and adapted to the new era. Back when I was in college (late aughties), the joke in our social circle was to say something ridiculous, then say, "what? It's true. You're saying you don't trust eaglepatriot1776 dot blogspot dot com?
As someone with a chronic incurable disability, I'm tired of abled bodied people deciding for us which of our experiences count as 'evidence' and which do not.
People have this perception of modern medicine as an infallible cure-all that isn't saddled with systemic discrimination and neglect of women and minorities.
It doesn't matter how effective a medication is for a certain condition or for off label use. The only thing that matters is that that clinical trials are worth the investment to pharmaceutical companies, and the people most worth investing into are those with money and the privilege of being heard by their doctors.
The rest of us can continue screaming into the void as our symptoms are dismissed and as we are treated like unreliable witnesses to our own bodies. 'Have you tried yoga?' 'You just need to lose weight.' 'Abdominal pain? It's just your period.' We are treated like we aren't trying our hardest to live with every symptom. And then when we find something that works, we are told that 'it's not covered by insurance' or 'there is no evidence that it works' or 'it's just placebo'. It's like nothing we feel in our body is true and everything we say is treated as a drugseeking lie.
Fuck the cherry picked 'evidence'. The system is broken and chronically ill people are left to suffer.
Thousands of experiments? Many experiments can't even be reproduced once.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
The art is knowing which science is built on thousands of experiments and which isn't.
You are correct about the replication problems, but this also varies heavily depending what scientific discipline you look at.
Also if you do science you may take the results oft another scientist (if they make sense and are peer revievewed) and build your next experiment on it, which may also work out and get peer reviewed.
So even with the replication problem science can work and build on thousands of experiments. But it would be better and needed that the experiments were reproducible.
Also let's acknowledge that just posting the Wikipedia of the replication crisis and saying that makes scientific theory development invalid is total bullshit.
First that this issue was brought up ~20 years go. Second that the advancement of meta science has remedied these issues a lot. Third that we are now far more open about science with organizations like OSF. Fourth that in the example of the comic these are usually arguments against highly replicated works like climate science not small niche areas of psychology the public doesn't interact with.
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
Web of links