Talk:3101: Good Science - Revision history

82.13.184.33 at 08:05, 16 June 2025

2025-06-16T08:05:51Z

PotatoGod: Note that many of the good science factors are in use

2025-06-13T16:18:07Z

Note that many of the good science factors are in use

92.23.2.228 at 19:48, 12 June 2025

2025-06-12T19:48:31Z

45.74.123.106 at 19:07, 12 June 2025

2025-06-12T19:07:43Z

Itub at 11:03, 12 June 2025

2025-06-12T11:03:28Z

185.177.139.23 at 10:00, 12 June 2025

2025-06-12T10:00:03Z

82.13.184.33 at 08:28, 12 June 2025

2025-06-12T08:28:37Z

2A11:3:200:0:0:0:0:2004: alternative interpretation

2025-06-12T03:21:58Z

alternative interpretation

112.213.42.56: Uses of pure rigour.

2025-06-12T02:06:37Z

Uses of pure rigour.

92.23.2.228 at 22:49, 11 June 2025

2025-06-11T22:49:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:05, 16 June 2025
Line 11:		Line 11:

	I think there's a potential spin on the title text that I don't currently see addressed, but it might be in line with Randall's seeming attitude towards such matters: Rigour without curiosity doesn't need to be wrong, it's just that it's joyless. Or maybe soulless? The idea being that if you do rigorously correct but completely incurious science, you're doing it wrong even if the results themselves are technically correct. (Which they probably would be, given all that rigour.) Viewed this way, it's a critique of a particular kind of science that often comes in for criticism: endless variations on some (seemingly) unimportant experimental theme, for example, might be viewed as a way to generate publications without generating any actual advancement of science. {{unsigned ip\|45.74.123.106\|19:07, 12 June 2025}}		I think there's a potential spin on the title text that I don't currently see addressed, but it might be in line with Randall's seeming attitude towards such matters: Rigour without curiosity doesn't need to be wrong, it's just that it's joyless. Or maybe soulless? The idea being that if you do rigorously correct but completely incurious science, you're doing it wrong even if the results themselves are technically correct. (Which they probably would be, given all that rigour.) Viewed this way, it's a critique of a particular kind of science that often comes in for criticism: endless variations on some (seemingly) unimportant experimental theme, for example, might be viewed as a way to generate publications without generating any actual advancement of science. {{unsigned ip\|45.74.123.106\|19:07, 12 June 2025}}
−

	I'd argue that the student's response isn't only demonstrating good science by way of skepticism, as the current explanation suggests, but in fact demonstrating the first 5 factors all at once! Collaborating in the lesson, rather than it being purely a lecture, skepticism of other's claims (as mentioned already), questioning her own beliefs (is ammonia more important in science than I realized?), trying to falsify hypothesis (the hypothesis that ammonia is essential in science, in this case), checking citations (wait, what is this claim based on?). Plenty of good science being done! [[User:PotatoGod\|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod\|talk]]) 16:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)		I'd argue that the student's response isn't only demonstrating good science by way of skepticism, as the current explanation suggests, but in fact demonstrating the first 5 factors all at once! Collaborating in the lesson, rather than it being purely a lecture, skepticism of other's claims (as mentioned already), questioning her own beliefs (is ammonia more important in science than I realized?), trying to falsify hypothesis (the hypothesis that ammonia is essential in science, in this case), checking citations (wait, what is this claim based on?). Plenty of good science being done! [[User:PotatoGod\|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod\|talk]]) 16:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:18, 13 June 2025
Line 11:		Line 11:

	I think there's a potential spin on the title text that I don't currently see addressed, but it might be in line with Randall's seeming attitude towards such matters: Rigour without curiosity doesn't need to be wrong, it's just that it's joyless. Or maybe soulless? The idea being that if you do rigorously correct but completely incurious science, you're doing it wrong even if the results themselves are technically correct. (Which they probably would be, given all that rigour.) Viewed this way, it's a critique of a particular kind of science that often comes in for criticism: endless variations on some (seemingly) unimportant experimental theme, for example, might be viewed as a way to generate publications without generating any actual advancement of science. {{unsigned ip\|45.74.123.106\|19:07, 12 June 2025}}		I think there's a potential spin on the title text that I don't currently see addressed, but it might be in line with Randall's seeming attitude towards such matters: Rigour without curiosity doesn't need to be wrong, it's just that it's joyless. Or maybe soulless? The idea being that if you do rigorously correct but completely incurious science, you're doing it wrong even if the results themselves are technically correct. (Which they probably would be, given all that rigour.) Viewed this way, it's a critique of a particular kind of science that often comes in for criticism: endless variations on some (seemingly) unimportant experimental theme, for example, might be viewed as a way to generate publications without generating any actual advancement of science. {{unsigned ip\|45.74.123.106\|19:07, 12 June 2025}}
		+
		+
		+	I'd argue that the student's response isn't only demonstrating good science by way of skepticism, as the current explanation suggests, but in fact demonstrating the first 5 factors all at once! Collaborating in the lesson, rather than it being purely a lecture, skepticism of other's claims (as mentioned already), questioning her own beliefs (is ammonia more important in science than I realized?), trying to falsify hypothesis (the hypothesis that ammonia is essential in science, in this case), checking citations (wait, what is this claim based on?). Plenty of good science being done! [[User:PotatoGod\|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod\|talk]]) 16:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:48, 12 June 2025
Line 10:		Line 10:
	:It's on the list, right below "adequate sample size" and "whether the lab has a lucky mascot" [[Special:Contributions/185.177.139.23\|185.177.139.23]] 10:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)		:It's on the list, right below "adequate sample size" and "whether the lab has a lucky mascot" [[Special:Contributions/185.177.139.23\|185.177.139.23]] 10:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

−	I think there's a potential spin on the title text that I don't currently see addressed, but it might be in line with Randall's seeming attitude towards such matters: Rigour without curiosity doesn't need to be wrong, it's just that it's joyless. Or maybe soulless? The idea being that if you do rigorously correct but completely incurious science, you're doing it wrong even if the results themselves are technically correct. (Which they probably would be, given all that rigour.) Viewed this way, it's a critique of a particular kind of science that often comes in for criticism: endless variations on some (seemingly) unimportant experimental theme, for example, might be viewed as a way to generate publications without generating any actual advancement of science.	+	I think there's a potential spin on the title text that I don't currently see addressed, but it might be in line with Randall's seeming attitude towards such matters: Rigour without curiosity doesn't need to be wrong, it's just that it's joyless. Or maybe soulless? The idea being that if you do rigorously correct but completely incurious science, you're doing it wrong even if the results themselves are technically correct. (Which they probably would be, given all that rigour.) Viewed this way, it's a critique of a particular kind of science that often comes in for criticism: endless variations on some (seemingly) unimportant experimental theme, for example, might be viewed as a way to generate publications without generating any actual advancement of science. {{unsigned ip\|45.74.123.106\|19:07, 12 June 2025}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:07, 12 June 2025
Line 9:		Line 9:
	Miss Lenhart has made the mistake common among many scientists of failing to include repeatability among her factors to be tested. Had she done so, ammonia would have disappeared from the results. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33\|82.13.184.33]] 08:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)		Miss Lenhart has made the mistake common among many scientists of failing to include repeatability among her factors to be tested. Had she done so, ammonia would have disappeared from the results. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33\|82.13.184.33]] 08:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
	:It's on the list, right below "adequate sample size" and "whether the lab has a lucky mascot" [[Special:Contributions/185.177.139.23\|185.177.139.23]] 10:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)		:It's on the list, right below "adequate sample size" and "whether the lab has a lucky mascot" [[Special:Contributions/185.177.139.23\|185.177.139.23]] 10:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	I think there's a potential spin on the title text that I don't currently see addressed, but it might be in line with Randall's seeming attitude towards such matters: Rigour without curiosity doesn't need to be wrong, it's just that it's joyless. Or maybe soulless? The idea being that if you do rigorously correct but completely incurious science, you're doing it wrong even if the results themselves are technically correct. (Which they probably would be, given all that rigour.) Viewed this way, it's a critique of a particular kind of science that often comes in for criticism: endless variations on some (seemingly) unimportant experimental theme, for example, might be viewed as a way to generate publications without generating any actual advancement of science.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <!-- Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom. -->
 Should I find it comforting that, faced with "ammonium hydroxide", the student(?) decodes that as basically just "ammonia"? I mean, there are differences between anhydrous and hydrated versions, but it implies a certain amount of relevent scientific knowledge. If I mentioned "whateverium phlobotomide", the uninitiated would (as well as maybe stumbling over any unfamiliar parts of the name) probably be blind to it potentially being just a technical variation of the ''essential'' part of the name. Or, to put it another way, the technobable involved if you were to be told that all the dangerous dihydrogen monoxide had been swapped out for hydrogen hydroxide. (Or that it had been even more dangerous by introducing some trace amounts of nullanol.) [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228|92.23.2.228]] 22:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
 I'm thinking that there are two uses for rigour without curiosity. The explanation covers the professional motive: to have a career in producing good-looking results.  There is also a political motive: to block a line of research, to prevent its results from gaining traction.  Table 1 of this: [http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/PS/Introduction.Going%20Public,%20Going%20Global.pdf] covers a variety of kinds of sociology, most of which could have opponents. [[Special:Contributions/112.213.42.56|112.213.42.56]] 02:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:00, 12 June 2025
Line 7:		Line 7:

	Miss Lenhart has made the mistake common among many scientists of failing to include repeatability among her factors to be tested. Had she done so, ammonia would have disappeared from the results. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33\|82.13.184.33]] 08:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)		Miss Lenhart has made the mistake common among many scientists of failing to include repeatability among her factors to be tested. Had she done so, ammonia would have disappeared from the results. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33\|82.13.184.33]] 08:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
		+	:It's on the list, right below "adequate sample size" and "whether the lab has a lucky mascot" [[Special:Contributions/185.177.139.23\|185.177.139.23]] 10:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:21, 12 June 2025
Line 4:		Line 4:
	I'm thinking that there are two uses for rigour without curiosity. The explanation covers the professional motive: to have a career in producing good-looking results. There is also a political motive: to block a line of research, to prevent its results from gaining traction. Table 1 of this: [http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/PS/Introduction.Going%20Public,%20Going%20Global.pdf] covers a variety of kinds of sociology, most of which could have opponents.		I'm thinking that there are two uses for rigour without curiosity. The explanation covers the professional motive: to have a career in producing good-looking results. There is also a political motive: to block a line of research, to prevent its results from gaining traction. Table 1 of this: [http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/PS/Introduction.Going%20Public,%20Going%20Global.pdf] covers a variety of kinds of sociology, most of which could have opponents.
	[[Special:Contributions/112.213.42.56\|112.213.42.56]] 02:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)		[[Special:Contributions/112.213.42.56\|112.213.42.56]] 02:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	Hi, I think there's an alternative reading for this one in the last panel, the first time I read it as dismissing the student's question and continuing her statement, which is a quite common move in other comics and always implied with ....... This way, the research became a meta-critique of bad science and somewhat links to rigor vs curiosity. First time commenting here, idk what to do now. [[Special:Contributions/2A11:3:200:0:0:0:0:2004\|2A11:3:200:0:0:0:0:2004]] 03:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)?

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:06, 12 June 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<!-- Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom. -->		<!-- Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom. -->
	Should I find it comforting that, faced with "ammonium hydroxide", the student(?) decodes that as basically just "ammonia"? I mean, there are differences between anhydrous and hydrated versions, but it implies a certain amount of relevent scientific knowledge. If I mentioned "whateverium phlobotomide", the uninitiated would (as well as maybe stumbling over any unfamiliar parts of the name) probably be blind to it potentially being just a technical variation of the ''essential'' part of the name. Or, to put it another way, the technobable involved if you were to be told that all the dangerous dihydrogen monoxide had been swapped out for hydrogen hydroxide. (Or that it had been even more dangerous by introducing some trace amounts of nullanol.) [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228\|92.23.2.228]] 22:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)		Should I find it comforting that, faced with "ammonium hydroxide", the student(?) decodes that as basically just "ammonia"? I mean, there are differences between anhydrous and hydrated versions, but it implies a certain amount of relevent scientific knowledge. If I mentioned "whateverium phlobotomide", the uninitiated would (as well as maybe stumbling over any unfamiliar parts of the name) probably be blind to it potentially being just a technical variation of the ''essential'' part of the name. Or, to put it another way, the technobable involved if you were to be told that all the dangerous dihydrogen monoxide had been swapped out for hydrogen hydroxide. (Or that it had been even more dangerous by introducing some trace amounts of nullanol.) [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228\|92.23.2.228]] 22:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	I'm thinking that there are two uses for rigour without curiosity. The explanation covers the professional motive: to have a career in producing good-looking results. There is also a political motive: to block a line of research, to prevent its results from gaining traction. Table 1 of this: [http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/PS/Introduction.Going%20Public,%20Going%20Global.pdf] covers a variety of kinds of sociology, most of which could have opponents.
		+	[[Special:Contributions/112.213.42.56\|112.213.42.56]] 02:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:49, 11 June 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<!-- Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom. -->		<!-- Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom. -->
		+	Should I find it comforting that, faced with "ammonium hydroxide", the student(?) decodes that as basically just "ammonia"? I mean, there are differences between anhydrous and hydrated versions, but it implies a certain amount of relevent scientific knowledge. If I mentioned "whateverium phlobotomide", the uninitiated would (as well as maybe stumbling over any unfamiliar parts of the name) probably be blind to it potentially being just a technical variation of the ''essential'' part of the name. Or, to put it another way, the technobable involved if you were to be told that all the dangerous dihydrogen monoxide had been swapped out for hydrogen hydroxide. (Or that it had been even more dangerous by introducing some trace amounts of nullanol.) [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228\|92.23.2.228]] 22:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)