xkcd #2977: Three Kinds of Research

https://xkcd.com/2977/

alt text:

The secret fourth kind is 'we applied a standard theory to their map of every tree and got some suspicious results.'

https://explainxkcd.com/2977/

422 points · 24 comments · view on lemmy.world

24 Comments

Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz · 62 pts · 1y (1 reply)

Then there’s also the flat-earther style: “We applied a flawed model and flawed methodology to standard circumstances and got the results we wanted!”

I guess we need a new comic to address all the different kinds of pseudo-science.

NegativeInf@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 1y

That's easy! We call that Garbage In Garbage Out!

ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml · 56 pts · 1y (8 replies)

What about 'we applied a standard theory to standard circumstances and somehow the results aren't right and it's probably our fault'

Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz · 13 pts · 1y (3 replies)

Business as usual, just another day at the lab. People using actual real world samples instead of the expensive standards to produce a very messy calibration squiggle. Also, the machine probably requires some maintenance from time to time.

Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 1y (2 replies)

Should just assume a perfectly spherical cow in a vacuum for simplicity's sake 🤷

palordrolap@fedia.io · 12 pts · 1y (1 reply)

Oddly enough, the lack of air pressure in a vacuum would have the effect of trying to turn a regular cow into a sphere.

(Do not do this. Not even if the cow is already dead. Thanks.)

Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1y

Do not do this.

Dammit, there goes my weekend! Oh well, guess I can still just eat that dead cow that's been taking up space in the lab 🤷

Cryophilia@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 1y (3 replies)

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” but “That’s funny …”

dave@feddit.uk · 12 pts · 1y (1 reply)

Not Eurrka

trolololol@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y

My favorite is the one on fire

ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 1y

Not to be confused with "is it supposed to be making a noise", which is usually pretty bad

The_v@lemmy.world · 35 pts · 1y (2 replies)

The one I see the most is:

"We avoided any semblance of rational experimental design and got significant results."

Agent641@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 1y

We were awarded grant money from a corporation and got results that are favourable to them but require further grants to really boost that evidence up a notch, wink wink

Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz · 6 pts · 1y

If all else fails, use "significant at a p>0.05 level" and hope no one notices.

source: xkcd

PlexSheep@infosec.pub · 15 pts · 1y (2 replies)

There is also "We did nothing of value"

Agret@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 1y (1 reply)

Aka "we applied a standard theory to standard circumstances and got the expected result" - one can argue it does help in a way by providing another dataset although it didn't really accomplish anything it can be useful for student research projects in that field.

PlexSheep@infosec.pub · 2 pts · 1y

No I meant wasting time with useless stuff

Mubelotix@jlai.lu · 12 pts · 1y (3 replies)
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1y
PlexSheep@infosec.pub · 1 pts · 1y (1 reply)

I'm afraid tree mapping isn't yet in it

Mubelotix@jlai.lu · 1 pts · 1y

It is. But it groups trees that are next to each other. You can add a single tree in the "Things" overlay

Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 1y

Content notice on explainxkcd:

This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Created by a DEPTH-FIRST TREE SEARCHER

😄

HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1y

Don't forget "these are novel circumstances and so we attempted something, but really the circumstances are so novel that just documenting them is pretty neat"

metaStatic@kbin.earth · 6 pts · 1y

We applied a map of every tree to a set of all possible sets we're waiting on the results