1295: New Study

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
ChronosDragon
Posts: 1852
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:42 am UTC
Location: [~]

1295: New Study

Postby ChronosDragon » Mon Nov 25, 2013 6:00 am UTC

Image

When the results are published, no one will be sure whether to report on them again.

85% of faked statistics are created for the sake of humor. True story.
Image

User avatar
rhomboidal
Posts: 801
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby rhomboidal » Mon Nov 25, 2013 6:04 am UTC

The other 15% of news organizations just Google the new study, scan the first few results blurbs, and THEN repeat it.

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby keithl » Mon Nov 25, 2013 6:06 am UTC

ChronosDragon wrote:85% of faked statistics are created for the sake of humor. True story.

And the other 85% are created for political purposes.

Sn0zz
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:43 pm UTC

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby Sn0zz » Mon Nov 25, 2013 8:14 am UTC

I like how the title text switches from 'New Study' to 'Tumblr Post'. Almost didn't catch that. :)
-EDIT- ahaha! Foiled by my Chrome extension based on comic 1288. Randall MUST have title done that on purpose. :wink:

Wooloomooloo
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:05 am UTC

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby Wooloomooloo » Mon Nov 25, 2013 9:24 am UTC

I find it even more annoying that apparently 100% of internet-based news outlets publish "news" without any discrimination whatsoever, even when it's blindingly obvious even to a moderately knowledgeable person in that field that said "news" is fake/hoax/cannot possibly be legit, and should at the very least be reported somewhat circumspectly. The new journalistic credo is "we don't question the news, we publish them" to the point of current "journos" finding it incredibly offensive if you expect anything else. Bleuargh...

richP
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:28 pm UTC

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby richP » Mon Nov 25, 2013 2:53 pm UTC

An extension of this issue is somewhat like comic 882. News sites report something like "Scientists at Big State University studying link between jellybeans and acne". The next day the water cooler conversations are something like "Now they say jellybeans cause acne!"

airdrik
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 3:08 pm UTC

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby airdrik » Mon Nov 25, 2013 3:01 pm UTC

keithl wrote:
ChronosDragon wrote:85% of faked statistics are created for the sake of humor. True story.

And the other 85% are created for political purposes.

And let us not forget that 85% of all statistics are made up on the spot*.

* and 85/((85*85*85+85)/85*85) of citations of the aforementioned statistic are also made up on the spot ;)

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2068
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby cellocgw » Mon Nov 25, 2013 3:43 pm UTC

Real statistic: 100% of the time that I want chocolate, I want chocolate.
resume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

airdrik
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 3:08 pm UTC

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby airdrik » Mon Nov 25, 2013 3:51 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:Real statistic: 100% of the time that I want chocolate, I want chocolate.

New Study:
Sometimes people crave chocolate when reading about new studies.

According to a recent survey, 1 in 7 people who commented on the New Study comic reported a desire for chocolate. Coincidence? I think not.

This just in: apparently experts* disagree, and insist that the burrito is real.

* and by experts, of course I mean Beret Guy.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby Klear » Mon Nov 25, 2013 4:20 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:Real statistic: 100% of the time that I want chocolate, I want chocolate.


And 100% members of the tautology club are members of the tautology club.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2068
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby cellocgw » Mon Nov 25, 2013 5:09 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
cellocgw wrote:Real statistic: 100% of the time that I want chocolate, I want chocolate.


And 100% members of the tautology club are members of the tautology club.


What's that about my member.... ship? :oops:
resume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby Kit. » Mon Nov 25, 2013 5:14 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:
Klear wrote:
cellocgw wrote:Real statistic: 100% of the time that I want chocolate, I want chocolate.

And 100% members of the tautology club are members of the tautology club.

What's that about my member.... ship? :oops:

If you belong, you belong.

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Mon Nov 25, 2013 5:43 pm UTC

Most every news story about a study involving health wrote:Today's new study reports a fairly flimsy correlation that has a number of highly likely causes and confounding variables. Also, the correlation proves a specific causation because it's the only thing that the scientists measured.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby Klear » Mon Nov 25, 2013 5:58 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:
Klear wrote:
cellocgw wrote:Real statistic: 100% of the time that I want chocolate, I want chocolate.


And 100% members of the tautology club are members of the tautology club.


What's that about my member.... ship? :oops:


Your membership status is your membership status.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby da Doctah » Mon Nov 25, 2013 7:46 pm UTC

Something like 83% of all made-up statistics cite a percentage that's a prime number.

There's probably a research grant to examine that phenomenon.

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Mon Nov 25, 2013 8:00 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:Something like 83% of all made-up statistics cite a percentage that's a prime number.

There's probably a research grant to examine that phenomenon.


2% of research grants are dedicated to that, in fact.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby Klear » Mon Nov 25, 2013 8:11 pm UTC

62,5% posts in this thread cite seemingly made up statistics.

User avatar
CocoaNutCakery
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby CocoaNutCakery » Mon Nov 25, 2013 8:16 pm UTC

Klear wrote:62,5% posts in this thread cite seemingly made up statistics.


I'm not counting them.

Citric
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:34 am UTC

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby Citric » Mon Nov 25, 2013 8:51 pm UTC

I just made up the statistic that 90% of people are over 3 feet tall.... think I'm going to try to get this published soon.

dalcde
Posts: 173
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:49 am UTC

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby dalcde » Mon Nov 25, 2013 10:41 pm UTC


brenok
Needs Directions
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:35 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby brenok » Mon Nov 25, 2013 10:54 pm UTC

CocoaNutCakery wrote:
Klear wrote:62,5% posts in this thread cite seemingly made up statistics.


I'm not counting them.


62.5% is 10/16. I counted it and to me it seems it's actually 9/16, but I may have missed some post

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby Klear » Mon Nov 25, 2013 11:43 pm UTC

brenok wrote:
CocoaNutCakery wrote:
Klear wrote:62,5% posts in this thread cite seemingly made up statistics.


I'm not counting them.


62.5% is 10/16. I counted it and to me it seems it's actually 9/16, but I may have missed some post


I thought I made a mistake, but that's where the "made up" comes in. Though I recounted it and got 10 again. I think you either didn't count the post itself, or this post which doesn't have percent sign in it.

Edit: Besides, it's down to 47,6% as of now.

brenok
Needs Directions
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:35 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby brenok » Tue Nov 26, 2013 12:32 am UTC

But if I count your post, that's 17 in total, unless the first doesn't count.
Anyway, 62.5% is not "seemingly made up", it looks real.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3656
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:00 am UTC

brenok wrote:But if I count your post, that's 17 in total, unless the first doesn't count.
Anyway, 62.5% is not "seemingly made up", it looks real.

9 out of 10 cats can't tell the difference between real and invented statistics. Nor can the tenth, but that requires more statistics to establish.

Farabor
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:46 am UTC

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby Farabor » Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:05 am UTC

Klear wrote:
cellocgw wrote:Real statistic: 100% of the time that I want chocolate, I want chocolate.


And 100% members of the tautology club are members of the tautology club.


Let us not forget, The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.

scharb
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:09 pm UTC

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby scharb » Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:40 am UTC

This must be inspired at least partially by the way news organizations reported completely uncritically on the Bigfoot study.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10344
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby addams » Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:48 am UTC

Once upon a time a long time ago the words, "I don't make the news I, just, report it." were believable.
Those words are not believable, today. Today, the excitement must be kept in a frenzied state by the 24/7 News Cycle.

Science News is mistranslated to a greater degree than regular news.
Science News is sort of boring. The Null is right, a lot. How boring is that?
Not boring for you. Not boring for me. But for Joe Six-Pack it is boring.

That can turn into the next exciting 24/7 News Cycle story.
"THOUSANDS OF US DOLLARS SPENT ON NOT FINDING **Name OUTRAGE**"
It is so stupid. The fucking TV News could be replaced with some educational programing.

I read a book about educators. One woman was critical of a US teaching style.
She said, "How can you ask them to think before you have taught them how?"

I understand that woman better and better all the time.
People are told to write poetry before they have read poetry.
People are told to do math without the taking math classes.

The average person honestly believes they know as much as those pampered Science Guys.
If an average person can not read the words in the study, the study is considered stupid; Not the reader.
Who are these Reporters? People that want to keep their jobs? They will do as told to do.

Oh. Lazy, too. That Lazy thing runs in the Family; The Family of Man.
Didn't you read the study?


Some odd reading about the two faced monster that media has become.
http://www.miscelaneajournal.net/index. ... le/view/14
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 835
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby PinkShinyRose » Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:43 pm UTC

addams wrote:If an average person can not read the words in the study, the study is considered stupid; Not the reader.

To be fair: a lot of phrasings in scientific articles can be simplified without changing their meaning. A lot of technical terms are also avoidable... So to a certain extend this is true.

Ray Kremer
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:21 pm UTC

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby Ray Kremer » Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:32 pm UTC

It's not even that the media repeats "new study" stuff without checking it. I'll give the benefit of the doubt, most "new studies" genuinely are a published study. No, the problem is that the media and the majority of the people watching them think that science is a mystical thing that is always gospel truth 100% correct forever and ever amen. They have no concept that a "new study" will be examined and checked by the scientific community and stands a good chance of being contradicted by another study within 10 years. They think that anything uttered by a scientist is the same as stuff like the structure of the atom that was confirmed experimentally a century ago, and don't realize that depending on the field of study, a lot of science is not and cannot be tested using controlled experiments, and therefore the conclusions drawn are much less certain, and also anything "discovered" within the past few decades is much less certain than stuff that's been undisputed for 100 years. Our science education isn't teaching people to be skeptical, and I don't mean skeptical in the sense of "that's not true" but in the sense of "Well that sounds good at the moment but what if you haven't seen all the angles and are drawing conclusions that aren't necessarily fully accurate? Let's wait and see if this holds up to further scrutiny, to which I will be totally open-minded."

rmsgrey
Posts: 3656
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:18 am UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
addams wrote:If an average person can not read the words in the study, the study is considered stupid; Not the reader.

To be fair: a lot of phrasings in scientific articles can be simplified without changing their meaning. A lot of technical terms are also avoidable... So to a certain extend this is true.


The main reason people use technical terms is because they have a precise meaning, which means precisely what the author intends to convey. Yes, you can simplify the phrasing without changing what a layman would understand it to mean (assuming they understand it at all) but at the expense of making it ambiguous or even downright misleading. And you still have the problem that you're trying to express thoughts that the reader may not have the context to understand. Yes, you could always use the meanings of the terms rather than the terms themselves, but if you're not careful you end up writing a textbook (or a series of textbooks) instead of an article on the detection of neutrinos apparently moving faster than light.


Yes, you can "up-goer five" things and have them be recognisable to someone who already knows what they're talking about but if someone who doesn't already understand it uses that to try to understand it, they will not go to space today...

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby Kit. » Wed Nov 27, 2013 1:36 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
addams wrote:If an average person can not read the words in the study, the study is considered stupid; Not the reader.

To be fair: a lot of phrasings in scientific articles can be simplified without changing their meaning. A lot of technical terms are also avoidable... So to a certain extend this is true.

It could also make the article much shorter :roll:

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 835
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby PinkShinyRose » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:16 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:
addams wrote:If an average person can not read the words in the study, the study is considered stupid; Not the reader.

To be fair: a lot of phrasings in scientific articles can be simplified without changing their meaning. A lot of technical terms are also avoidable... So to a certain extend this is true.


The main reason people use technical terms is because they have a precise meaning, which means precisely what the author intends to convey. Yes, you can simplify the phrasing without changing what a layman would understand it to mean (assuming they understand it at all) but at the expense of making it ambiguous or even downright misleading. And you still have the problem that you're trying to express thoughts that the reader may not have the context to understand. Yes, you could always use the meanings of the terms rather than the terms themselves, but if you're not careful you end up writing a textbook (or a series of textbooks) instead of an article on the detection of neutrinos apparently moving faster than light.


Yes, you can "up-goer five" things and have them be recognisable to someone who already knows what they're talking about but if someone who doesn't already understand it uses that to try to understand it, they will not go to space today...

I was mostly going for things like using 'hepatic ...' instead of 'liver ...'. I get the advantage of using latin for things, but if you change the words to fit your language anyway (i.e. changing vena hepatica to hepatic vein) you could just as well change it to something other people can understand ('liver vein' in this example). I didn't say all technical terms are unnecessary but hepatic is not more specific than liver...

Eoink
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:33 pm UTC

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby Eoink » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:29 pm UTC

I'm not sure, I don't think a TV show about the Hepatic Birds would have been as successful. (I actually agree with your general point, just couldn't resist the cheap joke.)
For non-Brits, and Brits younger than me, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Liver_Birds

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby davidstarlingm » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:32 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:I was mostly going for things like using 'hepatic ...' instead of 'liver ...'. I get the advantage of using latin for things, but if you change the words to fit your language anyway (i.e. changing vena hepatica to hepatic vein) you could just as well change it to something other people can understand ('liver vein' in this example). I didn't say all technical terms are unnecessary but hepatic is not more specific than liver...

Well, hepatic veins are a very specific set of veins. If you say "liver vein" then people might think you're talking about a particular vein in the liver or around the liver, rather than the veins responsible for hepatic process.

I think Latin is used not because it sounds cooler, but because it gives us a set of words that aren't used for anything less specific. Liver is an organ, but it's also a food. If you say "hepatic" then people know you're talking about liver function.

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby PolakoVoador » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:33 pm UTC

What about the city of Hepaticpool?

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 835
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby PinkShinyRose » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:46 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:I was mostly going for things like using 'hepatic ...' instead of 'liver ...'. I get the advantage of using latin for things, but if you change the words to fit your language anyway (i.e. changing vena hepatica to hepatic vein) you could just as well change it to something other people can understand ('liver vein' in this example). I didn't say all technical terms are unnecessary but hepatic is not more specific than liver...

Well, hepatic veins are a very specific set of veins. If you say "liver vein" then people might think you're talking about a particular vein in the liver or around the liver, rather than the veins responsible for hepatic process.

I think Latin is used not because it sounds cooler, but because it gives us a set of words that aren't used for anything less specific. Liver is an organ, but it's also a food. If you say "hepatic" then people know you're talking about liver function.

I thought the liver that is generally eaten IS the organ, now I'm confused :shock:. I don't think liver vein is currently in use so if it would have been used instead of hepatic vein there would not have been ambiguity.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby Klear » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:48 pm UTC

PolakoVoador wrote:What about the city of Hepaticpool?


That's where The Coleoptera come from, right?

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby davidstarlingm » Wed Nov 27, 2013 3:06 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:I think Latin is used not because it sounds cooler, but because it gives us a set of words that aren't used for anything less specific. Liver is an organ, but it's also a food. If you say "hepatic" then people know you're talking about liver function.

I thought the liver that is generally eaten IS the organ, now I'm confused :shock:. I don't think liver vein is currently in use so if it would have been used instead of hepatic vein there would not have been ambiguity.

Well, it is the organ. But the food liver is different from the organ liver because talking about the organ is an issue of function, while talking about the food is an issue of taste.

If you just say "liver vein" then for all I know, you could be talking about working in a butcher shop where you have to devein organs. Using a latin term implies that you're dealing with it in the scientific sense.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 835
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby PinkShinyRose » Wed Nov 27, 2013 4:34 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:If you just say "liver vein" then for all I know, you could be talking about working in a butcher shop where you have to devein organs. Using a latin term implies that you're dealing with it in the scientific sense.

In any situation where the use of technical terms is appropriate this is implied from context and therefore redundant.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: 1295: New Study

Postby davidstarlingm » Wed Nov 27, 2013 5:30 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:If you just say "liver vein" then for all I know, you could be talking about working in a butcher shop where you have to devein organs. Using a latin term implies that you're dealing with it in the scientific sense.

In any situation where the use of technical terms is appropriate this is implied from context and therefore redundant.

Usually, yes. But why use many words when a few will do? Having more precise words is a good thing. Trying to avoid Newspeak and all, you know.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher and 111 guests