Editing 2012: Thorough Analysis
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | |||
{{comic | {{comic | ||
| number = 2012 | | number = 2012 | ||
Line 9: | Line 8: | ||
==Explanation== | ==Explanation== | ||
+ | {{incomplete|Created by Genetically Tested Timber Wolves- Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}} | ||
This comic remarks on how obsessively some scientific papers investigate some insignificant, obscure things. It gives the example of an investigation into whether an {{w|1811–12 New Madrid earthquakes|earthquake in 1811}} caused church bells 600 miles away in Charleston, South Carolina to ring, which, although mildly interesting, is of minimal scientific importance. The earthquake itself is of enormous scientific interest, as an earthquake of the same magnitude in the same area today could cause enormous damage, but Charleston is not in the area considered at significant risk. | This comic remarks on how obsessively some scientific papers investigate some insignificant, obscure things. It gives the example of an investigation into whether an {{w|1811–12 New Madrid earthquakes|earthquake in 1811}} caused church bells 600 miles away in Charleston, South Carolina to ring, which, although mildly interesting, is of minimal scientific importance. The earthquake itself is of enormous scientific interest, as an earthquake of the same magnitude in the same area today could cause enormous damage, but Charleston is not in the area considered at significant risk. | ||
− | An explicit comparison is made to the {{w|9/11 Commission Report}}, a study that was undertaken to, broadly, answer the question of how the | + | An explicit comparison is made to the {{w|9/11 Commission Report}}, a study that was undertaken to, broadly, answer the question of how the 9/11 attacks were able to occur (and by extension, what errors in security and communication needed to be addressed to improve detection of and response to other terrorist acts). |
This paper describes the researchers going as far as to genetically test local trees, likely to find those most closely related to the trees used for construction, so as to measure their structural properties and extrapolate the likely structural properties of the original building. Such extrapolation might require its own study to back its validity. It is likely in real life that the small differences such research would reveal would end up being too unsubstantial to have actually warranted any searching. | This paper describes the researchers going as far as to genetically test local trees, likely to find those most closely related to the trees used for construction, so as to measure their structural properties and extrapolate the likely structural properties of the original building. Such extrapolation might require its own study to back its validity. It is likely in real life that the small differences such research would reveal would end up being too unsubstantial to have actually warranted any searching. | ||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
The title text is a continuation of this paper, which researches into the bells' shapes, and then goes on to note that the entire interview is provided in Appendix VII, indicating that this paper has a substantial amount of additional information considered distracting from the main body. | The title text is a continuation of this paper, which researches into the bells' shapes, and then goes on to note that the entire interview is provided in Appendix VII, indicating that this paper has a substantial amount of additional information considered distracting from the main body. | ||
− | The Tower of London would be a strange place to seek expertise on church bells: even its | + | The Tower of London would be a strange place to seek expertise on church bells: even its Bell Tower contains warning bells rather than church-style bells. Until 2017, the nearby {{w|Whitechapel Bell Foundry}} would have been a much better (arguably the best possible) source of information. Whites of Appleton (in Oxfordshire) or John Taylor & Co (in Loughborough) would be current alternatives. Closer to home for the paper's author, the McShane Bell Foundry in Maryland is likely to offer far more relevant expertise certainly than the Tower of London, and may in addition be able to offer relevant insights specific to the history of bellfounding in the USA. |
− | |||
− | |||
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== | ||
− | :[The comic | + | {{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}} |
+ | :[The comic mainly consists of the beginning of a research paper written in grey:] | ||
:<span style="color:gray">1. Introduction</span> | :<span style="color:gray">1. Introduction</span> | ||
Line 31: | Line 30: | ||
:<span style="color:gray">The original bell tower has been lost, but a computer model of the church building was created from archival plans and forensic masonry analysis. Genetic testing of the timber from local trees related to those used in the bell tower shows a weakness in the</span> | :<span style="color:gray">The original bell tower has been lost, but a computer model of the church building was created from archival plans and forensic masonry analysis. Genetic testing of the timber from local trees related to those used in the bell tower shows a weakness in the</span> | ||
+ | |||
:[Caption below the panel:] | :[Caption below the panel:] | ||
− | :My favorite genre of scientific papers are exhaustive 100-page treatises that answer some minor question with the obsessive thoroughness of the 9/11 | + | :My favorite genre of scientific papers are exhaustive 100-page treatises that answer some minor question with the obsessive thoroughness of the 9/11 commission report. |
{{comic discussion}} | {{comic discussion}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |