2977: Three Kinds of Research

|< < Prev Comic #2977 (August 26, 2024) Next > >|

Three Kinds of Research

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

Explanation

This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Created by a DEPTH-FIRST TREE RE-SEARCHER - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon. If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.

In this comic, three types of research are presented. First, Cueball presents an analysis of an existing theory, testing to see if it holds up under unusual circumstances. Second, Miss Lenhart presents a new theory; to prove that it has merit, it is tested on "standard" circumstances, presumably older data that the existing theories have already been tested on. As Miss Lenhart's data graph looks similar in form to Cueball's, it is possible that they are approaching the same field from two different directions.

The punchline is a disheveled Hairy presenting the third kind of research: not a theory, but a survey that collects the data to test theories on. Rather than sit around his laboratory crunching numbers, Hairy has gotten deep in the weeds — literally, judging by the leaves stuck to his body — to somehow map out "every tree." How far his survey of "every tree" reaches isn't clear but it's implied to be a massive area such as most of a country, continent or even the world (though the appearance of the graph doesn't have any obvious relationship to any global projection), and he's raising his arms in exhausted triumph over the fact that he's finally finished.

The comic thus presents a message about science: while it is perceived to be a high-minded affair with lots of very smart people performing calculations well over most people's heads, it still relies on getting down and dirty — again, literally in Hairy's case — with the rather basic challenges of measuring what the problems are to begin with. Some scientific papers are simply descriptions of measured phenomena.

The title text brings everything together by testing theories on the tree map (this is similar to Cueball's approach), with suspicious results. There can be multiple interpretations of these results: the "map of every tree" was manipulated or simply inaccurate, someone is messing with trees on a global level or the tree survey methods and/or mapping techniques are questionable.

For example, the ΛCDM standard model of cosmology could be
1) supported or challenged by new empirical data on the distribution of galaxies, new simulations or a mathematical thought experiment based on that model
2) challenged by a new model that is better at explaining some oddities of the model, such as dark energy
3) complemented with a survey of the timeline of everything in the universe :-)

In this case the fourth kind of researcher would apply the cosmological standard model to the map of everything and find something suspicious.

Randall has previously created a similar type of comic in 2529: Unsolved Math Problems.

Transcript

This transcript is incomplete. Please help editing it! Thanks.

[A single panel with three separate drawings.]

[Caption above the drawings:]

The Three Kinds of Scientific Research:

[Cueball is pointing to a scatter plot with a best-fit curve.]

Cueball: We applied a standard theory to novel circumstances and got some surprising results.

[Miss Lenhart is pointing to a similar scatter plot.]

Miss Lenhart: We applied a novel theory to standard circumstances and got some intriguing results.

[Hairy, with leaves in his messy hair and on his body, is pointing to another chart that is covered in random dots and unidentifiable shapes, while having both arms raised. Leaves are falling from him and are scattered on the ground at his feet. A stick is stuck in his hair.]

Hairy: Finally, a map of every tree.

 add a comment! ⋅  add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅  refresh comments!

Discussion

Aren't there two missing ones: standard model+standard circumstances (i.e. remembering you have to have something to turn in and it's the night before the science fair) and novel theory+novel circumstances (i.e. what if the universe is actually a seven dimensional tuna salad sandwich?) RegularSizedGuy (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

ah, but that isn't professional research. youtu.be/miLcaqq2Zpk 06:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I shall add this to the list: miLcaqq2Zpk 162.158.197.157 (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2024 (please sign your comments with ~~~~) (whatever the reason/need was to say this)

Standard model+standard circumstances, in moderation, is an essential part of science. Repeating an experiment a few times helps show what the real results are. If anything, there tends to be an unfortunate bias to not repeating experiments enough (harder to get them funded/published than it should be). It becomes a standard model and standard circumstances by repetition. 172.70.206.209 07:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I originally thought that Hairy was mapping every tree as in like a binary tree, and was covered in plants for some other, possibly related reason. Also, what's this about <blah>? 172.69.22.50 20:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Knowing Randall, this was a mathematical investigation, but Hairy got a little more "into the (initially mathematical) trees" than intended. Might be worth expanding on this, but it's (intentionally, thus humorously) vague so it could have a lot of different thoughts attached to it.

As to the other bit:

• Someone wrote a non sequitur trolling on that subject you mentioned, even though the comic has absolutely nothing to do with it (and the comments weren't exactly a notably intellectual analysis, anyway, even if it had been). Others fed the troll a bit, there was some editing done and then a resurgence (just as poorly done) that you got to see but had left of most of the early 'context' absent.
• It's all readable in the page history. Not worth reading, IMO, but it's there. But now not here. Bye bye the whole (limited) discussion as a non-executive decision on my part.
• I would not normally delete/edit others' comments from Talk (especially of regulars), but definitely more smoke than fire and more heat than light so no loss. If established users wish to create a subsection for it, and paste it all back in, they're welcome to and can easily do so. Until then, any other anon-IP or recently created username that starts up with another clear and irrelevent trolling should probably consider themselves fair game to be deleted again (and perhaps by actual named editors/admin), plus any purely troll-feeding replies that had only that relevence.

HTH, HAND. 172.70.91.90 23:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Mapping individual trees is an actual thing, and how to do that is a field of research. I had a quick look and saw that it has come a long way since I gave up studying Forestry to become a teacher instead: Mapping individual trees with airborne laser scanning data... Individual structure mapping over six million trees for NYC app for GPS-mapping so-called "habitat trees" that provide ecological niches and thus get special protection to promote biodiversity Germany seems to be much bigger on this than other countries; anyway I can well remember how this kind of thing was a typical interns' task in my day and obviously still is. It's fairly reasonable to assume, though, that this may not have been exactly on top of Randall's mind. PaulEberhardt (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Come to think of it, Hairy doesn't specify a particular area or type of tree, so he may have got carried away after all. PaulEberhardt (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

What if we apply a novel theory to novel circumstances? ;) 172.69.71.83 18:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The state of California did actually map every tree in the state: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/heres-map-all-trees-california-180955708/

I previously added a paragraph about Hairy's gender which then got removed because it was bloated by further edits. (At least, I hope that was the reason.) I've reintroduced a more concise explanation that should stand the test of time as it is both interesting and important IMHO. Please note that I have deliberately not used the term 'non-binary' as this is not a catch-all term for any gender-diverse individual. I like the term 'gender-expansive' but not everyone knows what that means. :-)172.70.91.254 18:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Trouble is, the absolutely most likely explanation is that it was a their-plural. Then that it's their-indetermined (by the speaker). The their-otherness (self-proclaimed alternate-gender) option is a valid but still exceptional reason, in comparison. If in doubt about which decision was made, we could fall back to number two (if we're aware enough about sensitivity), but only because we're not yet entrusted with the original reason, not knowing about their knowledge (or otherwise), and attitude, of Hairy's particular scenario. Until someone says "my pronouns are...", you could just as much annoy them by hypercorrecting the common assumptions. (There are certain types I wouldn't mind annoying, because one needn't tolerate intolerance, but there's not just that to consider.) 172.70.91.100 22:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Given the scale of the endeavour as demonstrated by how dishevelled Hairy looks, it seems to me that the idea is that Hairy made that map *alone*. I guess it's possible that the title text is referring to multiple people, but I never interpreted it like that. The map being a solo project also fits with the comedy of the comic.172.70.90.123 23:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hairy might just be the only (or first) one that got back from the woods with the results, or the most presentable and/or effusively capable for the task of public speaking. I doubt the other two were sole-authors*, either, of their own publications (assumed not an actual doctoral 'viva', which would be more personal and individual) and a double-act (or group) presentation team isn't generally the norm unless you're going for actual theatrics in announcing your (entertaining) results to the world. 172.70.91.76 11:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

* - meant to say, sole authors of the paper that described how "we" (their team) provided the presentation material. 172.70.91.53 11:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

An example of the 3rd kind of research: https://x.com/jasoncrawford/status/1835819853157962137 : Listing "every Anglo-Saxon whose name we know". Rps (talk)

Is this *really* Miss Lenhart? She isn't teaching nor is named as such here, I'm willing to bet this is just Blondie 108.162.238.35 13:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)