Talk:2239: Data Error - Revision history

Kazvorpal at 18:40, 22 January 2020

2020-01-22T18:40:00Z

Kazvorpal at 18:39, 22 January 2020

2020-01-22T18:39:36Z

162.158.34.222 at 15:05, 13 December 2019

2019-12-13T15:05:08Z

162.158.34.222 at 15:03, 13 December 2019

2019-12-13T15:03:24Z

Cellocgw at 12:29, 11 December 2019

2019-12-11T12:29:19Z

172.68.132.107 at 11:35, 11 December 2019

2019-12-11T11:35:25Z

162.158.79.113 at 01:34, 11 December 2019

2019-12-11T01:34:13Z

162.158.79.113 at 01:28, 11 December 2019

2019-12-11T01:28:40Z

Ianrbibtitlht at 22:17, 10 December 2019

2019-12-10T22:17:21Z

172.69.62.46 at 21:39, 10 December 2019

2019-12-10T21:39:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:40, 22 January 2020
Line 25:		Line 25:
	If it were merely an error in analysis (see the recent mess with python, [https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/10/chemists-discover-cross-platform-python-scripts-not-so-cross-platform/] ), then you simply fix your analysis code and re-run. So, yes, a "data error" means the original data values were flawed or invalid or whatever. Most likely sabotage inflicted by sophons. [[User:Cellocgw\|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw\|talk]]) 12:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)		If it were merely an error in analysis (see the recent mess with python, [https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/10/chemists-discover-cross-platform-python-scripts-not-so-cross-platform/] ), then you simply fix your analysis code and re-run. So, yes, a "data error" means the original data values were flawed or invalid or whatever. Most likely sabotage inflicted by sophons. [[User:Cellocgw\|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw\|talk]]) 12:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

−	I'm happy that he said "two options" instead of "two choices", which of course would involve four options. Watching the horrific Star Trek: Discovery for completist purposes, I was annoyed when someone said "you have only one alternative" when they meant "you have only one option". — [[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 18:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)	+	I'm happy that he said "two options" instead of "two choices", which of course would involve around four options. Watching the horrific Star Trek: Discovery for completist purposes, I was annoyed when someone said "you have only one alternative" when they meant "you have only one option". — [[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 18:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:39, 22 January 2020
Line 24:		Line 24:

	If it were merely an error in analysis (see the recent mess with python, [https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/10/chemists-discover-cross-platform-python-scripts-not-so-cross-platform/] ), then you simply fix your analysis code and re-run. So, yes, a "data error" means the original data values were flawed or invalid or whatever. Most likely sabotage inflicted by sophons. [[User:Cellocgw\|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw\|talk]]) 12:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)		If it were merely an error in analysis (see the recent mess with python, [https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/10/chemists-discover-cross-platform-python-scripts-not-so-cross-platform/] ), then you simply fix your analysis code and re-run. So, yes, a "data error" means the original data values were flawed or invalid or whatever. Most likely sabotage inflicted by sophons. [[User:Cellocgw\|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw\|talk]]) 12:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	I'm happy that he said "two options" instead of "two choices", which of course would involve four options. Watching the horrific Star Trek: Discovery for completist purposes, I was annoyed when someone said "you have only one alternative" when they meant "you have only one option". — [[User:Kazvorpal\|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal\|talk]]) 18:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 : I'm not aware of anything in the news.  However, this is not the first time Randall has commented on research publication in a comic, so I suspect it's just another in that series.  It seems obvious that he feels the first option is the appropriate choice, and the second option is the joke. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 21:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
-: I believe there was a relatively recent issue where a Python script used for processing data-sets made assumptions about the order in which data files would be returned by the host operating system that turned out to not always be true, throwing the results of several analyses off.  Could he be referring to that?  https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/10/chemists-discover-cross-platform-python-scripts-not-so-cross-platform/ [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.222|162.158.34.222]] 15:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
+: I believe there was a relatively recent issue where a Python script used for processing data-sets made assumptions about the order in which data files would be returned by the host operating system that turned out to not always be true, throwing the results of several analyses off.  Could he be referring to that?  The scripts in question were used for obtaining results into cyanobacteria studies...  https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/10/chemists-discover-cross-platform-python-scripts-not-so-cross-platform/ [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.222|162.158.34.222]] 15:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 I think the stickwoman is not "excited" but sarcastic, although you can't be sure in text. It is a joke based on the discrepancy in capabilities between real scientists and fictional mad scientists. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.119|108.162.238.119]] 22:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:03, 13 December 2019
Line 4:		Line 4:

	: I'm not aware of anything in the news. However, this is not the first time Randall has commented on research publication in a comic, so I suspect it's just another in that series. It seems obvious that he feels the first option is the appropriate choice, and the second option is the joke. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 21:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)		: I'm not aware of anything in the news. However, this is not the first time Randall has commented on research publication in a comic, so I suspect it's just another in that series. It seems obvious that he feels the first option is the appropriate choice, and the second option is the joke. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 21:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	: I believe there was a relatively recent issue where a Python script used for processing data-sets made assumptions about the order in which data files would be returned by the host operating system that turned out to not always be true, throwing the results of several analyses off. Could he be referring to that? https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/10/chemists-discover-cross-platform-python-scripts-not-so-cross-platform/ [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.222\|162.158.34.222]] 15:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

	I think the stickwoman is not "excited" but sarcastic, although you can't be sure in text. It is a joke based on the discrepancy in capabilities between real scientists and fictional mad scientists. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.119\|108.162.238.119]] 22:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)		I think the stickwoman is not "excited" but sarcastic, although you can't be sure in text. It is a joke based on the discrepancy in capabilities between real scientists and fictional mad scientists. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.119\|108.162.238.119]] 22:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:29, 11 December 2019
Line 20:		Line 20:
	:Yes, I omitted an important source of error: Sabotage! You're not paranoid, someone really is messing with your data.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.113\|162.158.79.113]] 01:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)		:Yes, I omitted an important source of error: Sabotage! You're not paranoid, someone really is messing with your data.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.113\|162.158.79.113]] 01:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
	:So, a data error is an error in your data, instead of in your analysis? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.107\|172.68.132.107]] 11:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)		:So, a data error is an error in your data, instead of in your analysis? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.107\|172.68.132.107]] 11:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	If it were merely an error in analysis (see the recent mess with python, [https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/10/chemists-discover-cross-platform-python-scripts-not-so-cross-platform/] ), then you simply fix your analysis code and re-run. So, yes, a "data error" means the original data values were flawed or invalid or whatever. Most likely sabotage inflicted by sophons. [[User:Cellocgw\|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw\|talk]]) 12:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:35, 11 December 2019
Line 19:		Line 19:
	:More about data errors. Yes, I listed just one kind, and a fellow I knew had to re-do his thesis because of that particular error. The careful researcher investigates many possible sources of error. The poor researcher simply throws away the data points that do not match his preconceptions. HERE WE GO, enumerating some errors: (1) Noise from physically sloppy equipment. (2) Lack of calibration of measuring device. (3) Device loses calibration over time. (4) Manually recorded data errors, such as transposed digits. (5) Incorrect assumptions of linearity in the design of measurement. (6) Failure to record crucial environmental parameters. [That's just six minutes of thinking. Surely there are others.]		:More about data errors. Yes, I listed just one kind, and a fellow I knew had to re-do his thesis because of that particular error. The careful researcher investigates many possible sources of error. The poor researcher simply throws away the data points that do not match his preconceptions. HERE WE GO, enumerating some errors: (1) Noise from physically sloppy equipment. (2) Lack of calibration of measuring device. (3) Device loses calibration over time. (4) Manually recorded data errors, such as transposed digits. (5) Incorrect assumptions of linearity in the design of measurement. (6) Failure to record crucial environmental parameters. [That's just six minutes of thinking. Surely there are others.]
	:Yes, I omitted an important source of error: Sabotage! You're not paranoid, someone really is messing with your data.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.113\|162.158.79.113]] 01:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)		:Yes, I omitted an important source of error: Sabotage! You're not paranoid, someone really is messing with your data.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.113\|162.158.79.113]] 01:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
		+	:So, a data error is an error in your data, instead of in your analysis? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.107\|172.68.132.107]] 11:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:34, 11 December 2019
Line 18:		Line 18:
	::::Also, malfunctioning or miscalibrated measuring equipment (transducers, cabling, etc.) would be another type of data error. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 22:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)		::::Also, malfunctioning or miscalibrated measuring equipment (transducers, cabling, etc.) would be another type of data error. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 22:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
	:More about data errors. Yes, I listed just one kind, and a fellow I knew had to re-do his thesis because of that particular error. The careful researcher investigates many possible sources of error. The poor researcher simply throws away the data points that do not match his preconceptions. HERE WE GO, enumerating some errors: (1) Noise from physically sloppy equipment. (2) Lack of calibration of measuring device. (3) Device loses calibration over time. (4) Manually recorded data errors, such as transposed digits. (5) Incorrect assumptions of linearity in the design of measurement. (6) Failure to record crucial environmental parameters. [That's just six minutes of thinking. Surely there are others.]		:More about data errors. Yes, I listed just one kind, and a fellow I knew had to re-do his thesis because of that particular error. The careful researcher investigates many possible sources of error. The poor researcher simply throws away the data points that do not match his preconceptions. HERE WE GO, enumerating some errors: (1) Noise from physically sloppy equipment. (2) Lack of calibration of measuring device. (3) Device loses calibration over time. (4) Manually recorded data errors, such as transposed digits. (5) Incorrect assumptions of linearity in the design of measurement. (6) Failure to record crucial environmental parameters. [That's just six minutes of thinking. Surely there are others.]
		+	:Yes, I omitted an important source of error: Sabotage! You're not paranoid, someone really is messing with your data.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.113\|162.158.79.113]] 01:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:28, 11 December 2019
Line 17:		Line 17:
	:::Well, that is '''a''' type of data error (bad sampling technique), but not the only type. The data itself could have had corruption problems, such as maybe some rogue second species of algae contaminated the samples, etc. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.46\|172.69.62.46]] 21:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)		:::Well, that is '''a''' type of data error (bad sampling technique), but not the only type. The data itself could have had corruption problems, such as maybe some rogue second species of algae contaminated the samples, etc. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.46\|172.69.62.46]] 21:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
	::::Also, malfunctioning or miscalibrated measuring equipment (transducers, cabling, etc.) would be another type of data error. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 22:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)		::::Also, malfunctioning or miscalibrated measuring equipment (transducers, cabling, etc.) would be another type of data error. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 22:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
		+	:More about data errors. Yes, I listed just one kind, and a fellow I knew had to re-do his thesis because of that particular error. The careful researcher investigates many possible sources of error. The poor researcher simply throws away the data points that do not match his preconceptions. HERE WE GO, enumerating some errors: (1) Noise from physically sloppy equipment. (2) Lack of calibration of measuring device. (3) Device loses calibration over time. (4) Manually recorded data errors, such as transposed digits. (5) Incorrect assumptions of linearity in the design of measurement. (6) Failure to record crucial environmental parameters. [That's just six minutes of thinking. Surely there are others.]

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:17, 10 December 2019
Line 16:		Line 16:
	::I thought I knew what a data error is, but after that reply I'm not sure - although I'm almos sure that it did not help the one asking the question ;-) --[[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 15:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)		::I thought I knew what a data error is, but after that reply I'm not sure - although I'm almos sure that it did not help the one asking the question ;-) --[[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 15:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
	:::Well, that is '''a''' type of data error (bad sampling technique), but not the only type. The data itself could have had corruption problems, such as maybe some rogue second species of algae contaminated the samples, etc. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.46\|172.69.62.46]] 21:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)		:::Well, that is '''a''' type of data error (bad sampling technique), but not the only type. The data itself could have had corruption problems, such as maybe some rogue second species of algae contaminated the samples, etc. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.46\|172.69.62.46]] 21:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
		+	::::Also, malfunctioning or miscalibrated measuring equipment (transducers, cabling, etc.) would be another type of data error. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 22:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:39, 10 December 2019
Line 15:		Line 15:
	:The discovery that the data you used was sampled below the Nyquist frequency pretty much kills your thesis until you can get data that was properly acquired. All your results will be contaminated with artifacts produced by the sampling rate, rather than by variations in the quantity that you imagined you were observing. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.209\|173.245.52.209]] 12:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)		:The discovery that the data you used was sampled below the Nyquist frequency pretty much kills your thesis until you can get data that was properly acquired. All your results will be contaminated with artifacts produced by the sampling rate, rather than by variations in the quantity that you imagined you were observing. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.209\|173.245.52.209]] 12:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
	::I thought I knew what a data error is, but after that reply I'm not sure - although I'm almos sure that it did not help the one asking the question ;-) --[[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 15:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)		::I thought I knew what a data error is, but after that reply I'm not sure - although I'm almos sure that it did not help the one asking the question ;-) --[[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 15:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
		+	:::Well, that is '''a''' type of data error (bad sampling technique), but not the only type. The data itself could have had corruption problems, such as maybe some rogue second species of algae contaminated the samples, etc. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.46\|172.69.62.46]] 21:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)