explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1574: Trouble for Science

2015-09-08T08:30:08Z

198.41.241.73:

Sentence case, or down style, is one method, preferred by many print and online publications and recommended by the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. The only two rules are the two rules mentioned above: Capitalize the first word and all proper nouns. Everything else is in lowercase. http://www.dailywritingtips.com/rules-for-capitalization-in-titles/ [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.154|173.245.50.154]] 12:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

;Problems with the p-value as an indicator of significance

The p-value alone can never be an indicator of significance. However, it is still often used as the only indicator, because a full set of parameters (including sample size, test setup, etc.) can't easily be packed into a single number. There's a nice article in nature about this problem: [http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-statistical-errors-1.14700]
I can also recommend [http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800this story] about (ab-)using hacked p-values to get maximum publicity. I hope this helps :-) --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.183|141.101.105.183]] 12:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
:In this section, I really want to reword the p-valye explanation that "one can assume that the event observed 'exists'." Except where it's an event indirectly observed through a chained effect (unseeable gas molecules observed through brownian motion, unstable particles through detection of their decay particles, prehistoric meteorite impact through a geological/chemical fingerprint, etc) I think it should be more that "this (directly observed) event was directly linked to the presumed cause rather than spontaneous and random, at least w.r.t. the presumed cause being tested". But writing it better than I did just now. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.114|141.101.99.114]] 19:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the joke is that these newspapers are talking about how bad science is, and yet they manage to come up with a stupid story about Bunsen burners, presumably being too scientifically illiterate to know the problem. [[User:Timband|Timband]] ([[User talk:Timband|talk]]) 12:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Although reading the other comments, it's a much better joke if the Bunsen Burner story is actually true, because that makes all of them about journalists not realising that they are highlighting their own ignorance. [[User:Timband|Timband]] ([[User talk:Timband|talk]]) 16:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

See [[Significant]] for another comic on p-values.--[[User:Henke37|Henke37]] ([[User talk:Henke37|talk]]) 14:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

;Controlled trials show Bunsen burners make things colder

Actually, I can easily imagine a way to use a Bunsen burner to make something colder. Involving an unlit Bunsen burner that has been placed in the freezer for a couple hours, for example. Nowhere in the headline is there any mention of a flame. --[[User:Svenman|Svenman]] ([[User talk:Svenman|talk]]) 12:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:Actually, there was a (badly formatted and badly placed, probably therefore now removed) comment on the explanation page earlier which pointed out that feeding a Bunsen burner from a propane bottle will cause the pressure, and therefore the temperature, in the bottle to decrease. That is a lot less contrived than my original idea. --[[User:Svenman|Svenman]] ([[User talk:Svenman|talk]]) 13:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

::That was me. Trying to get my 2 cents in on my phone before I forgot. http://www.propane101.com/propaneregulatorfreezing.htm as an example. [[User:Mattiep|Mattiep]] ([[User talk:Mattiep|talk]]) 13:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:Correct me if i'm wrong here, but doesn't burning flame from a Bunsen burner cause the temperatures of the flame and the target object to equalize? Sure in most cases that results in a temperature increase in the target object, but I don't see why that would be true in all high temperature cases. The comment about "reducing the rate of heat loss in 2000K+ temp objects" would only be true if the gas (assuming any atmosphere at all) surrounding the target object was cooler than the flame from the bunsen burner. This gets worse in a perfect vacuum. If a 5000K object was in a perfect vacuum and somebody set a lit bunsen burner (assuming the tip had an Oxygen source) to spray across the target object, then the Flame would get hotter as it touched the hotter object and the object would cool as the two temperatures attempted to equalize. No reduction of heat loss would happen. Can we remove the comment about "reducing the rate of heat loss in 2000K+ temp objects" ? [[User:Harodotus|Harodotus]] ([[User talk:Harodotus|talk]]) 22:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC).

::Found an article backing up my previous comment and lacking any objection for several hours, reveresed the note in the article.[http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2xr7dc/can_you_cool_an_object_hotter_than_fire_with_fire/] [[User:Harodotus|Harodotus]] ([[User talk:Harodotus|talk]]) 23:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:Bunsen burners hasten the heat death of the universe, making things colder generally. Showing that in "controlled trials" seems like a challenge for a type 2 civilization, though. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.241.73|198.41.241.73]] 08:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the joke is in the wording of the headlines. The fact that a replication study fails to reproduce can be seen as a contradiction. Overfeeding rodents leads to fat rodents. This compromises their ability to function als animal (runway) models. I haven't figured out the other ones yet. But that's çause I'm dumb :-). Alva. {{unsigned ip|141.101.104.80}}

:It's way simpler than that - The joke is that people outside of sciences (with no understanding really of how to science) will report basically anything that sounds shocking or exciting, especially if it proves those nerdy, scary scientists wrong! So Randall gives us a bunch of possibly headlines that to a layman read like real, scary news about science, but to scientists this is stuff that is generally well known and understood. The last one is just taking it a step further for credulous news editors - They've been lying to us all this time! 13:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
::I think it's even simpler than that: the title is "Trouble for Science" and it shows a series of misleading headlines about misleading (i.e.: invalidated) scientific studies. The implication is "Trouble for Journalism".[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.87|173.245.54.87]] 14:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

:I agree. All of the titles are poorly written. All immunoassays are antibody-based, so saying many commercial antibody-based immunoassays are unreliable is redundant, implying they have no idea what an immunoassay is. Problems with the p-value as an indicator of significance implies that there is some significant error in the use of a tool to measure significance of error, which leads one to wonder how they figured that out. If you don't know what a p-test is, the title is paradoxical. The last title would make someone assume that the controlled trials are using turned on bunsen burners to make things colder, but could mean almost anything, such as a bunsen burner being turned off the entire time, or a bunsen burner placed inside of a freezer, or even that people consider using bunsen burners in an experiment makes the experiment cool (or sweet or groovy or whatever). {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.155}}

I generally agree, but would say if you DO know what a p-test is, the title is paradoxical. If you don't know what a p-test is, the title is meaningless. [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 07:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:255: Subjectivity

2015-09-07T18:50:42Z

198.41.241.73:

I did the same thing once when the park was still in existence. The slide was only 12-15' high. That was huge though compared to the "kiddy" slide which was only 6' or so.

Still it was a disappointment. I always remember that thing as being as tall as the trees nearby.

These days you can't even find a slide let alone a tall one. We've lost our adventurous spirit and it starts with the children. [[User:Jakee308|Jakee308]] ([[User talk:Jakee308|talk]]) 20:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

About the Aslan reference. In one of the later books one of the children meets Aslan and he is bigger than he used to be. Aslan answers that it is because the child himself (or herself) has grown. Any other Narnia nerd out there remembers this or is it just my memory making things up for me?

1552: Rulebook

2015-07-17T11:12:48Z

198.41.241.73:

{{comic
| number = 1552
| date = July 17, 2015
| title = Rulebook
| image = rulebook.png
| titletext = It's definitely an intentional foul, but we've decided it's worth it.
}}

==Explanation==
{{Incomplete|first draft}}
This cartoon is a common theme in xkcd and a reference to the film series Air Bud and other similar films. In the film a golden retriever becomes the star player in a sports team. Invariably in these films the opposing team will contest the legality of inter-species play resulting in the referees stating "nothing in the rule book says dogs can't play".

Rulebook are considered the final arbiter of decisions in many games. However, this flawed reasoning allows any number of activities that are not specifically discussed in the rule book, such as setting the playing field on fire, [[650: Nowhere|riding on dinosaurs]], [[356: Nerd Sniping|nerd sniping]], or [https://what-if.xkcd.com/1/ throwing the ball at 90% of the speed of light]. Rule books are also mentioned in
* [[330: Indecision]]
* [[393: Ultimate Game]]

In this scenario [[Ponytail]] declares to her opponents, [[Cueball]], [[Megan]] and a golden retriever that her team may euthanize and digest a member of their team and note that it is also not specifically discussed in the rule book.

The title text alludes to the flaw in the reasoning indicating such things are discussed indirectly in the rule book. Killing a player is a technical foul, but the penalty may be well worth the removal of the opposing star player and dogs, however gifted at sports, are not nearly as well protected by law as humans are.

==Transcript==

Ponytail: There's nothing in the rulebook that says we can't kill and eat your dog.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Rulebook]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]

1545: Strengths and Weaknesses

2015-07-01T15:53:54Z

198.41.241.73:

{{comic
| number = 1545
| date = July 1, 2015
| title = Strengths and Weaknesses
| image = strengths_and_weaknesses.png
| titletext = Do you need me to do a quicksort on the whiteboard or produce a generation of offspring or something? It might take me a bit, but I can do it.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|May need some more detail on the likelihood of becoming the ancestor of all living humans. Explain the title text.}}
Here [[Cueball]] is in a job interview and is being asked prototypical job interview questions by [[Ponytail]], "What is your greatest weakness?", "What is your greatest strength?" and "Where do you see yourself in five years?"

In a roundabout way, Cueball answers that he is a living organism, and and such he has inherent flaws which could cause him to die. This is a reference the fact that biological system are "messy" and are not always optimal in design or operation. For example cancer is a disease where the cellular machinery that governs cell replications breaks down and prolific cell division happens, endangering the organism (tumors). While this is true weakness it is also a weakness of all humans and is not likely to help the interview determine if the candidate is right for the job.

For the second question the character answers that he is likely to be the ancestors to all living humans. As time progresses a human alive today is likely to have three conditions related to the future populations:
:1) They have no descendants (They did not reproduce or all their descendants eventually did not reproduce.)
:2) They have some descendants (The likely outcome)
:3) All people alive are their descendant (Very unlikely)

As you go farther and farther into the future the ratio of people alive will either go to 0% or 100% of the descendants of the character. The last time humans had an {{w|Identical_ancestors_point|identical common ancestor (ICA)}} was around 15,000 years ago. Assuming there will still be humans 15,000 years from now, it is highly unlikely that someone living today will be their ICA, as the gene pool will probably scatter into isolated sets via space travel, preventing that from happening again. While this could be considered his greatest personal strength in the bigger picture of the life cycle of the universe, this answer likely does not help the interviewer determine whether he is suitable for the role.

For Cueball to be the ancestor to all living humans within 5 years means that all the humans who are not his children (or grandchildren), must have died in a near total extinction of the human race. Given that Cueball is not his own ancestor, he too must have died. His apparent optimism about the possibility of this occurring is therefore somewhat confusing.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail is shown sitting on a swivel chair, to the left of a desk.]
:Ponytail: What would you say is your biggest weakness?

:[The view expands to show Cueball sitting on another swivel chair, on the opposite side of the desk.]
:Cueball: Probably that I'm a giant tangle of parts that don't always work right, so I can die easily.

:Ponytail: Biggest strength?
:Cueball: There will come a day when I'm either an ancestor to ''all'' living humans, or to ''none'' of them.

:Ponytail: Where do you see yourself in five years?
:Cueball: Probably not the ancestor of all living humans yet. But you never know!

{{comic discussion}}

1538: Lyrics

2015-06-15T10:36:09Z

198.41.241.73: I hope to see further possible interpretations.

{{comic
| number = 1538
| date = June 15, 2015
| title = Lyrics
| image = lyrics.png
| titletext = To me, trying to understand song lyrics feels like when I see text in a dream but it𝔰 hอᵣd t₀ ᵣeₐd aกd 𝒾 canٖt fཱྀcu༧༦࿐༄
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This is a stub. There is probably a more thorough explanation.}}
The comic is illustrating (in text form) how listening to a song feels before you have learned what the actual lyrics are. The lyrics are represented in an indecipherable way, with a few mildly recognizable words. This represents the auditory experience of being able to hear and understand some words, but not all of them.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript}}
:[Cueball sits in a chair holding a phone. A speaker on a counter behind him is transmitting music. Four lines of wavey undecipherable lyrics eminate from the speaker. The lyrics are surrounded by musical notes.]
:I can't even tell her / I want friend help them
:And I one the wanna / Mahjong the can nap
:Had be is annoying or I'll / Hit doe artisan go kill
:Forgetting Loooveee? / Formatting glooovee?
:[Caption below the frame:]
:'''Sometimes I wonder what it would'''
:'''be like to be able to understand'''
:'''song lyrics without looking them up.'''

{{comic discussion}}