Editing 3101: Good Science

{{comic
| number    = 3101
| date      = June 11, 2025
| title     = Good Science
| image     = good_science_2x.png
| imagesize = 387x833px
| noexpand  = true
| titletext = If you think curiosity without rigor is bad, you should see rigor without curiosity.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Miss Lenhart]] is teaching a class to [[Jill]] and a [[Cueball]]-like kid. Based on her opening statement "I'm supposed to give you the tools to do good science." this is likely a general class on the principles of science, although it could be the start of a class on a specific field of science such as biology or physics. Classes about the principles of science (i.e. the scientific method, or what makes "good science") are common at the very introductory level, such as middle school science classes that give young students a basic framework to understand science, and also at the very advanced level, where PhD students take classes on the philosophy and history of science with detailed examination of epistemology, metaphysics, logic and ontology to be able to understand how their research affects the world.

However, Miss Lenhart explains that doing "good science" is hard, because research [https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/5-times-that-science-got-it-wrong often] [https://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/ produces] [https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/scientific-theories-proven-wrong incorrect] {{w|List of experimental errors and frauds in physics|results}}. She wonders what are the key things she should teach her students so that their scientific inquiry ends up being successful. She lists a series of items that are commonly suggested as leading to successful research, such as collaboration or skepticism, and explains that she performed a {{w|regression analysis}} (a mathematical technique often used in science), to find out which were most important. She concludes that the two most crucial factors are genuine curiosity about the subject (which makes sense as something that would drive scientists to achieve good results) and {{w|ammonium hydroxide}}, a chemical which does see some {{w|Ammonia_solution#Laboratory_use|laboratory use}}, but it does not obviously relate significantly to achieving good results (although it's often used to clean laboratory equipment, so it is possible that regular or thorough cleaning of equipment reduces experimental error).{{Actual citation needed}}

This may illustrate a potential problem with regression analyses caused by including too many predictor variables for the available data. This can cause random statistical noise in the sample to be interpreted as a meaningful effect.

When Jill points out that ammonium hydroxide is a nonsensical factor, Miss Lenhart replies that Jill is doing good science. The joke is that including ammonium hydroxide was just a means to get Jill to question the results. It also suggests that skepticism is actually the second crucial factor after genuine curiosity, as being skeptical of ammonium hydroxide as an important factor led to Jill's newfound success as a scientist. Alternatively, because Jill is being curious about how ammonia got onto the list, she is performing good science by using both curiosity and ammonia.

The title text addresses a common criticism in scientific circles that science is only good if it has rigor — that is, if it is well-documented and follows all of the proper procedure. It says that if curiosity without rigor is bad (in other words someone earnestly trying to figure out the answer, but doing it in a sloppy way) the opposite, rigor without curiosity, is much worse (a person who produces professional looking results but who doesn't care whether they are right or wrong). There are at least two issues with a scientist who is rigorous but uncurious. First is that, in the modern world, science has a very high social and cultural status, due to its incredible achievements over the past century and a half (from electric power to spaceflight to medical care). As a result, people tend to be very deferential to science, and the trappings of science (lab coats, clipboards, etc.) command respect. A rigorous but uncurious scientist could get people to believe more strongly in the wrong answer (for an example of how symbols like lab coats and clipboards can influence human behavior, see the {{w|Milgram experiment}}). Second, a rigorous scientist could become convinced of their performance because of their rigor, mistaking the outward process of science for science itself. In that case, beyond the initial wrong results due to their incuriosity, they could become resistant to changing their conclusions even when presented with decisive evidence to the contrary, sometimes to the point of suppressing other scientists who have reached the correct answer.

Randall has previously suggested that rigor is not as important in science as some make it out to be, when discussing ''{{w|MythBusters}}'' (see [[397: Unscientific]]).

## Explanations for Predictors of Correct Scientific Results

Understanding the predictors that enhance the accuracy of scientific outcomes is crucial for research integrity and advancement. Here’s a breakdown of each predictor:

### Collaboration
Collaboration involves working with others in the scientific community. It encourages the sharing of diverse perspectives, expertise, and resources. This collective effort can lead to more robust hypotheses and interpretations while reducing individual biases.

### Skepticism of Others' Claims
Maintaining a healthy skepticism regarding others' claims is vital in science. This prompts researchers to critically evaluate findings, claims, and methodologies rather than accepting them at face value, fostering a culture of questioning and verification.

### Questioning Your Own Beliefs
Being willing to question and challenge one’s own beliefs helps prevent confirmation bias, where researchers may only seek evidence supporting their hypotheses. This reflective practice encourages a more open-minded approach to data interpretation.

### Trying to Falsify Hypotheses
The pursuit of falsification is fundamental to the scientific method. Actively trying to disprove hypotheses rather than merely seeking to confirm them enhances the rigor of scientific inquiry, leading to more reliable results.

### Checking Citations
Ensuring that all claims are backed by credible references is vital for scientific integrity. Checking citations validates the sources and findings presented in research, helping researchers build upon sound evidence rather than flawed or misrepresented studies.

### Statistical Rigor
Employing statistically rigorous methods is essential for drawing valid conclusions from data. This includes appropriate study design, sample size, and analysis techniques, which help ensure that results are not due to random chance but reflect true relationships.

### Blinded Analysis
Blinded analyses help eliminate bias by keeping researchers unaware of which groups are being compared during data evaluation. This reduces the likelihood of unintentional influence on the results, enhancing the objectivity of the findings.

### Financial Disclosure
Disclosing any financial interests or conflicts of interest is critical for maintaining transparency in research. Understanding potential biases introduced by funding sources can help in assessing the validity and objectivity of scientific results.

### Open Data
Promoting open access to data allows for greater scrutiny and reproducibility of research. When data is available for others to analyze, it facilitates independent verification of results and fosters trust within the scientific community.

By recognizing and implementing these predictors, researchers can significantly enhance the reliability of their scientific results, contributing to the overall integrity of science.

==Transcript==
:[Miss Lenhart is standing in front of a whiteboard with some scribbles on it. She is looking away from it.]
:Miss Lenhart: I'm supposed to give you the tools to do good science.

:[Miss Lenhart is now seen standing in front of Jill and Cueball, who are seated at classroom desks. She is shrugging and has her arms up and looking away from board.]
:Miss Lenhart: But what '''''are''''' those tools?
:Miss Lenhart: Methodology is hard and there are so many ways to get incorrect results.
:Miss Lenhart: What is the magic ingredient that makes for good science?

:[Miss Lenhart headshot.]
:Miss Lenhart: To figure it out, I ran a regression with all the factors people say are important:
:[A list, presented in a sub-panel that Miss Lenhart is pointing to:]
:Outcome variable:
::• correct scientific results
:Predictors:
::• collaboration
::• skepticism of others' claims
::• questioning your own beliefs
::• trying to falsify hypotheses
::• checking citations
::• statistical rigor
::• blinded analysis
::• financial disclosure
::• open data
::[presumably the list goes on, as it runs off the visible part of the panel]

:[Another Miss Lenhart headshot.]
:Miss Lenhart: The regression says two ingredients are the most crucial:
:1) genuine curiosity about the answer to a question, and
:2) ammonium hydroxide

:[Miss Lenhart is  standing and Jill is seated at desk]
:Jill: Wait, why did '''''ammonia''''' score so high? How did it even get on the list?
:Miss Lenhart: ...and now you're doing good science!

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Miss Lenhart]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Jill]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Comics featuring children]]