3101: Good Science

2025-06-12T11:18:39Z

2601:CE:C180:2C60:11C8:EA52:981:DDB2: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3101
| date = June 11, 2025
| title = Good Science
| image = good_science_2x.png
| imagesize = 387x833px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = If you think curiosity without rigor is bad, you should see rigor without curiosity.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by a BOT VERY CURIOUS ABOUT XKCD. Don't remove this notice until the explanation below has the appropriate rigor.}}

[[Miss Lenhart]] is teaching a class to [[Jill]] and [[Cueball]]. Based on her opening statement "I'm supposed to give you the tools to do good science." this is likely a general class on the principles of science, although it could be the start of a class on a specific field of science such as biology or physics. Classes about the principles of science (i.e. the scientific method, or what makes "good science") are common at the very introductory level, such as middle school science classes that give young students a basic framework to understand science, and also at the very advanced level, where PhD students take classes on the philosophy and history of science with detailed examination of epistemology, metaphysics, logic, and ontology to be able to understand how their research affects the world.

However, Miss Lenhart explains that doing "good science" is hard, because research often produces incorrect results. She wonders what are the key things she should teach her students so that their scientific inquiry ends up being successful. She lists a series of items that are commonly suggested as leading to successful research, such as collaboration or skepticism, and explains that she performed a regression (a mathematical technique often used in science), to find out which were most important. She concludes that the two most crucial factors are genuine curiosity about the subject (which makes sense as something that would drive scientists to achieve good results) and {{w|ammonium hydroxide}}, a chemical which does not obviously relate significantly to achieving good results (although it's often used to clean laboratory equipment, so it does contribute somewhat).{{actual citation needed}}

This may illustrate a potential problem with regression analyses caused by including too many predictor variables for the available data. This can cause random statistical noise in the sample to be interpreted as a meaningful effect.

When Jill points out that ammonium hydroxide is a nonsensical factor, Miss Lenhart replies that Jill is doing good science. The joke is that including ammonium hydroxide was just a means to get Jill to question the results. It also suggests that skepticism is actually the second crucial factor after genuine curiosity, as being skeptical of ammonium hydroxide as an important factor led to Jill's newfound success as a scientist. Alternatively, because Jill is being *curious* about how *ammonium* got onto the list, she is preforming good science by using both curiosity and ammonium

The title text addresses a common criticism in scientific circles that science is only good if it has rigor, that is if it is well documented and follows all of the proper procedure. It says that if curiosity without rigor is bad (in other words someone earnestly trying to figure out the answer, but doing it in a sloppy way) the opposite or rigor without curiosity is much worse (a person who produces professional looking results but who doesn't care about if they are right or wrong). Randall has previously suggested that rigor is not as important in science as some make it out to be, when discussing ''{{w|MythBusters}}'' (see [[397: Unscientific]]).

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
:[Miss Lenhart is standing in front of a whiteboard with some scribbles on it.]
:Miss Lenhart: I'm supposed to give you the tools to do good science.

:[Miss Lenhart is now standing in front of Jill and Cueball, who are seated at classroom desks.]
:Miss Lenhart: But what '''''are''''' those tools?
:Miss Lenhart: Methodology is hard and there are so many ways to get incorrect results.
:Miss Lenhart: What is the magic ingredient that makes for good science?

:[Miss Lenhart headshot.]
:Miss Lenhart: To figure it out, I ran a regression with all the factors people say are important:
:[A list, presented in a sub-panel that Miss Lenhart is pointing to:]
:Outcome variable:
::• correct scientific results
:Predictors:
::• collaboration
::• skepticism of others' claims
::• questioning your own beliefs
::• trying to falsify hypotheses
::• checking citations
::• statistical rigor
::• blinded analysis
::• financial disclosure
::• open data
::[presumably the list goes on, as it runs off the visible part of the panel]

:[Another Miss Lenhart headshot.]
:Miss Lenhart: The regression says two ingredients are the most crucial:
:1) genuine curiosity about the answer to a question, and
:2) ammonium hydroxide

:[Miss Lenhart, standing, and Jill, seated at desk]
:Jill: Wait, why did '''''ammonia''''' score so high? How did it even get on the list?
:Miss Lenhart: ...and now you're doing good science!

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Comics featuring Miss Lenhart]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Jill]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

[[Category:Science]]

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3101: Good Science