Moderators: Magistrates, Prelates, Moderators General
cjmcjmcjmcjm wrote:If it can't be done in an 80x24 terminal, it's not worth doing
Balesk Baj, Timeburner wrote:I find it baffling that you are complaining about Randall's small mention of Minecraft in this comic and you're not complaining on the topic of the comic itself.
Balesk Baj, Timeburner wrote:But what I find stranger is that you usually don't bash comics containing scientific, mathematical, or programming elements that normal people usually don't know
Balesk Baj, Timeburner wrote:and when you do, you usually:
a.) complain on small, unimportant stuff in it,
b.) point out that Randall's overall presentation of the comic is sloppy, or
c.) say that Randall only posts obscure nerdy topics to gain more attention and to make himself (and us XKCD fans) feel smarter.
radtea wrote:
The sad fact is that far more than 5% of papers published against the rather modest standard of p < 0.05 turn out to be reporting on results due to random chance. This comic explains why.
TheInsomniac wrote:No one who understands anything about statistics would use a p-value of 0.05 for a series of studies like this. It would require a bonferroni correction, which can be done simply by dividing 0.05 by the number of trials to correct for the 1/20 chance of a failure to reject the null.
xkcdfan42 wrote:Since I'm not prone to be a conspiracy theorist, I estimate that p < 0.5 for the hypothesis that Randall chose these titles for this purpose, but it's still interesting.
FourTael wrote:Anthonyjerome: Do you have a link to the majority decision or some news articles on the subject? I didn't hear about that case.
RockoTDF wrote:Most papers today actually report the best p value they can get, as given to them by their software. So yes, p <0.05 is the worst I'll take, but if SPSS, SAS, or R tells me p <0.0001 you bet your ass that is the number I put in the paper. Back in the day people just looked at a table and ran with p <0.05, even if it could be much better than that. For this reason I don't think this comic can argue that more than 5% of papers are published with chance results.
philip1201 wrote:Maybe I'm failing at logic here, but a 5% chance of your data being caused by something else than your model (which is what p<0.05 means, right?) doesn't mean there's a 5% chance of your model appearing out of random data.
Wikipedia wrote:The p-value is not the probability that a finding is "merely a fluke."
As the calculation of a p-value is based on the assumption that a finding is the product of chance alone, it patently cannot also be used to gauge the probability of that assumption being true. This is different from the real meaning which is that the p-value is the chance of obtaining such results if the null hypothesis is true.
Dason wrote:I don't think your logic is quite right. Just because we can get more accurate p-values doesn't mean that people suddenly use a lower alpha. If they get anything lower than .05 they'll publish. Sure you'll publish what the p-value actually is (p < .0001) but you would have been just as happy to publish if that would have to say (p = .049). So the alpha rate is still .05 and if they're doing multiple comparisons they're probably going to get some results by chance if they don't correct for it.
SirMustapha wrote: A lot of people complain that Family Guy often just references pop culture items for comedic effect, instead of creating actual substance.
RockoTDF wrote:For this reason I don't think this comic can argue that more than 5% of papers are published with chance results.
xtifr wrote:Yes, but they don't usually do it day after day after day after day after day. Some people like Family Guy, others don't. The ones that don't usually go do something else instead of watching it.
Eternal Density wrote:Also, are there any members of the Bayesian Conspiracy here?
xkcdfan42 wrote:Since I'm not prone to be a conspiracy theorist, I estimate that p < 0.5 for the hypothesis that Randall chose these titles for this purpose, but it's still interesting.
No real experiment exists in isolation, and if your analytical techniques do not provide ways of accounting for prior knowledge, you are using the wrong analytical techniques.
scarletmanuka wrote:madock345 wrote:I wonder if this takes the prize for most panels in an XKCD comic (I know there have been comics larger than this, but I am refering specifically to the number of panels)
The 2008 Christmas Special had more panels, though a lot of them were just black.
XKCD Loves the Discovery Channel had the same number of panels as this comic, and far less repetition.
Ezbez wrote:A great read which is loosely correlated with this comic is the recent New Yorker article The Truth Wears Off. It's a scary article for all us science folks who place great weight on the findings of well-executed studies.
Return to Individual XKCD Comic Threads
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], mscha and 18 guests