Difference between revisions of "2713: Data Point"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
(Explanation: multiple improvements)
(Transcript: complete and adding Category:Scientific research)
Line 23: Line 23:
  
 
==Transcript==
 
==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
+
:[A graph is shown. There are two axis with bullets up along the Y-axis and unreadable labels along the X-axis. There are no ticks on the axis. The graph itself is black with a round white center from where white lines "radiate" out in all directions, like a star or sun. In the center there is a single data point with symmetrical vertical error bars. Beneath the graph there are two lines of unreadable text to the left. To the right there is a rectangular box with a dot, representing the data point, and then an unreadable label. Above the graph there is a label:]
 +
:Figure 2.
  
Figure 2.
+
:[Caption beneath the panel:]
 +
:Science power move: When one of your data points is really cool, devote a whole figure to it.
  
[A large graph with axis labels and a legend is shown containing a single plotted data point in the center, with small, symmetrical, vertical error bars, and a huge halo aura of brilliant light rays emanating out from it and filling the vast majority of the graph's area.]
+
{{comic discussion}}
  
Science power move: When one of your data points is really cool, devote a whole figure to it.
 
 
{{comic discussion}}
 
 
[[Category:Science]]
 
[[Category:Science]]
 +
[[Category:Scientific research]]

Revision as of 09:30, 20 December 2022

Data Point
In general you should only include your single best data point in the paper. The rest of the data can go in the supplementary materials.
Title text: In general you should only include your single best data point in the paper. The rest of the data can go in the supplementary materials.

Explanation

Ambox notice.png This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Created by a REALLY COOL DATA POINT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.
If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.

When scientific measurements are made, any conclusions are based on multiple data points observed in relation to each other. The joke being that a single data point can almost never represent what the information in all the data taken together indicate.

This is possibly a joke about papers which only highlight particularly interesting or significant data without including the background measurements or similar mundane information necessary to fully understand or reproduce the findings. While there are accepted reasons for this practice it can be particularly annoying when trying to follow an otherwise useful procedure or comparing aspects of the results the authors did not anticipate.

The title text suggests including the remaining data in supplemental materials.

In this case the data point looks like a Tie Fighter flying at you from the direction of the Sun. This is so cool that the entire focus of the scientific paper should be on this figure alone, as stated in the caption, that gives a Science Power Move. (Similar to a Science Tip).

The title text mentions than in general you should always only include the best data point in the scientific paper. All other data can then be relegated to the section on supplementary materials.

Transcript

[A graph is shown. There are two axis with bullets up along the Y-axis and unreadable labels along the X-axis. There are no ticks on the axis. The graph itself is black with a round white center from where white lines "radiate" out in all directions, like a star or sun. In the center there is a single data point with symmetrical vertical error bars. Beneath the graph there are two lines of unreadable text to the left. To the right there is a rectangular box with a dot, representing the data point, and then an unreadable label. Above the graph there is a label:]
Figure 2.
[Caption beneath the panel:]
Science power move: When one of your data points is really cool, devote a whole figure to it.


comment.png add a comment! ⋅ comment.png add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ Icons-mini-action refresh blue.gif refresh comments!

Discussion

My theory: Randall got some interesting patterns drawing stars for the previous Gravity game, and wanted to show us how cool this one looks. 172.69.134.130 10:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

To me this looks like The Sun from Gravity, but moreso, so you may be right. :) NiceGuy1 (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Kudos to whomever used "datum" in its correct singular form. And also a kudo to the same person for their use of "data" correctly. 172.70.179.3 12:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Anti-kudos for neglecting the etymology of kudos, ancient Greek κῦδος. In spite of ending in "s" it's a singular noun that means praise. Would a singular kudo be a pray or a prey? 172.70.134.94 13:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
The irony is sweet as a molass. 162.158.78.27 18:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
This reminds me of a “dad joke” my mom would make every time we had molasses out on the dining table: she would inevitably, at some point, ask me to “pass the lasses.” And I would follow the script, and say, “don’t you mean MOlasses?” To which she would reply, in her best (meaning: awful) fake southern drawl, “hows ken it be MOlasses, whens I ain’t had none yet.”John (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Molasses are one of the most irony foods they is. I have a molass to increase my iron all the time!172.71.254.26 10:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh my my, a Dad Joke delivered by a Mom. Kudos. :) NiceGuy1 (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Also anti-kudos for using "whomever" incorrectly. In this case, as the subject of the clause "who[m]ever used 'datum' in its correct singular form", the word is "whoever". The words in the clause don't change when the clause is embedded in a sentence. Jkshapiro (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

In the business of quality engineering it's all too common for the lab to be asked to neglect "bad" data points. The method is known as "Test until good." -- "Aha! You finally got one data point that says the stuff's okay. Ship it!" 172.70.134.94 13:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

This comic finally explains the reason for the diffraction spikes on the stars in JWST images.

to be fair, there are certain data points which are mainly important in comparison to widely understood baselines, not to other data points in the actual test. things like fusion-energy-gain numbers, rocket ISP, nuclear warhead yield, etc. For those types of results, one valid data point that breaks the previous record is all that really matters. 172.70.126.232 01:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Isn't there a TIE fighter in the center of the picture? --162.158.129.80 11:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The usual convention is that whiskers around a solitary point are standard deviations (68% confidence intervals of normal distributions) but if they have perpendicular caps they're properly 95% confidence intervals (two standard deviations, again if the underlying data is normally distributed.) The convention for box-and-whiskers plots are different, where the whiskers are 95% confidence intervals whether they have caps or not, and the boxes are two quartiles (50% confidence intervals), and an off-center designation inside the box, by notches, or by the shape of the box represents the arithmetic mean (the median necessarily always being at the center of the box, which is often designated with a dashed line.) 172.71.158.230 03:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Uncapped whiskers around points can be 95%, 2σ intervals just as often as 1σ. Depend on the caption or text. 172.69.22.32 18:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)