1574: Trouble for Science

2015-09-09T14:25:14Z

Nhorvath: added note about possibility of bunsen burner one being true

{{comic
| number = 1574
| date = September 7, 2015
| title = Trouble for Science
| image = trouble_for_science.png
| titletext = Careful mathematical analysis demonstrates small-scale irregularities in Gaussian distribution
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|More details in each article, especially the humor/irony in the first one about antibodies.}}
The comic highlights the fact that several well-publicized scientific critiques have recently been published that raise questions about some commonly accepted scientific methods. For scientists, these critiques serve as reminders of the dangers of overconfidence in any method, hopefully leading those who have naively accepted results to remember that any scientific conclusion is by its very nature tentative and limited by methodological reliability. However, popular-press reporting of these papers may lead a general public of modest scientific literacy to the impression that science might be in trouble, as implicated by the title. Some of these methodological issues and shortcomings are well-known in the scientific community, but are – for better or worse – the best toolkit science has at its disposal today. This is however greatly exaggerated by the last (fictional) headline, which suggests that Bunsen burners in fact have a cooling effect, which is of course absolutely ridiculous, but would nevertheless change one more fundamental scientific belief drastically. Additionally, each headline contains irony or a double meaning for comical effect.

The title of five scientific articles are shown:

;Many commercial antibody-based immunoassays are unreliable
This sentence is true. See Kebaneilwe Lebani, [http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:352531 Antibody Discovery for Development of a Serotyping Dengue Virus NS1 Capture Assay], 2014. In this PhD thesis, 11 references are given.

;Problems with the p-value as an indicator of significance
p-value is the probability that an event is observed just by chance. If p-value is under a threshold level (''α'', usually <5%, or <1% for being more conservative) one can assume that the event observed "exists".
The value used for ''α'' has been proposed by [http://web.lru.dk/sites/lru.dk/files/lru/docs/kap9/kapitel_9_126_On_the_origins.pdf Fisher] and is completely arbitrary.

The use of p-values as a measure of statistical significance is frequently criticized, for example in [http://wiki.bio.dtu.dk/~agpe/papers/pval_notuseful.pdf Hubbard and Lindsay]. Randall has demonstrated this problem in the past in [[882: Significant]].
;Overfeeding of laboratory rodents compromises animal models

[http://tpx.sagepub.com/content/24/6/757.full.pdf Keenan et al.] makes this case. Additionally, the word model takes on two meanings. In one sense, a model can refer to a scientific description that makes sense of a phenomenon; in another sense, model can refer to an individual whose job it is to demonstrate fashions, typically fashionable outfits. Fashion models are notorious for being exceptionally thin.

;Replication study fails to reproduce many published results
A [https://explorable.com/replication-study Replication Study] is a study designed to replicate the results of a previous study by using the same methods for a different set of subjects and experimenters. It aims to recreate the results to gain confidence in the results of the previous study as well as ensuring that the findings of the previous study are transferable to other similar areas of study.

Randall is probably referring to this recent study: http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248
It might be also reference to at least 3 studies mentioned here: http://www.jove.com/blog/2012/05/03/studies-show-only-10-of-published-science-articles-are-reproducible-what-is-happening

;Controlled trials show Bunsen burners make things colder
This is a joke, but possible in high temperature cases. There is probably some methodological error if putting something over the Bunsen burner flame (which is between 1000K and 2000K) makes it colder. If that thing were already much hotter than the flame (more than 2000 Kelvin), the Bunsen Burner's flame would equalize the temperature between the flame and thing resulting in cooling. It's also possible that if the "controlled trial" involved a Bunsen burner that was not lit, but was turned on to allow gas to flow, it would have a cooling effect as the gas expanded from the line pressure to atmospheric pressure.

;Careful mathematical analysis demonstrates small-scale irregularities in Gaussian distribution

This is another joke of a premise that is obviously untrue. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_function Gaussian distribution] is a mathematical construct that is generally known as the bell curve or the Normal distribution. As it is an ideal mathematical construction, by definition, it cannot have any irregularities -- similar to how the equation y = 2x + 1 cannot have small-scale irregularities. The joke probably alludes to the fact that many types of observations are frequently initially modeled as a Gaussian distribution, though on careful observation the actual distribution of outcomes will often deviate from a pure Gaussian distribution.

==Transcript==
:[Five panels, each with the top part of a scientific article, where only the title is legible. Below is the list of authors and subheading and text in unreadable wiggles.]

:Many Commercial Antibody-Based Immunoassays Are Unreliable

:Problems With the p-Value as an Indicator of Significance

:Overfeeding of Laboratory Rodents Compromises Animal Models

:Replication Study Fails to Reproduce Many Published Results

:Controlled Trials Show Bunsen Burners Make Things Colder

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Physics]]

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1574: Trouble for Science