Editing 2440: Epistemic Uncertainty
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 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Explanation== | ==Explanation== | ||
− | + | {{incomplete|Created by GEORGE THE DATA TAMPERER. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT tamper this tag too soon.}} | |
− | + | This comic is a comparison of two different "research studies", one which shows "regular uncertainty" and one which shows "epistemic uncertainty." In both panels, the core data is the same - the drug in question is 74% effective - but the uncertainty qualities are different. The first is straightforward; the confidence interval (the error bars on the chart) is from 63 to 81%. The second panel includes the additional wrinkle of "George the Data Tamperer, whose whims are unpredictable." | |
− | {{w| | + | In statistics, a {{w|confidence interval}} is an estimate which provides a range of values, based on the statistical probability that the data collected represents a certain result. It is a reflection on the uncertainty imposed by the limits of study sample sizes. Since no study will ever have an infinite data set, it is possible for a small sample to give a skewed result, but the small skews are more probable than large ones. For example, if a drug was 80% effective it would be possible for a study with a sample size of 100 to randomly end up with 74 positive and 26 negative results. If the drug was 99% effective it would still be possible to randomly end up with the same data, but it would be highly unlikely. This gives us a spread of "likely" results, with results outside a certain interval being considered too unlikely to be realistic. |
− | The title text mentions an individual called "Evangeline the Adulterator | + | {{w|Epistemology}} – unlike {{w|epidemiology}} – is the branch of philosophy related to knowledge. It seems that the "epistemic uncertainty" data has a 25% chance of data {{w|tampering}}, by an individual called "George the Data Tamperer". In contrast to the previous study, where the data is known but its reflection of the general case is uncertain to an extent, in this study even the knowledge of "whether any single data point is correct" is uncertain. Thus, their data has a 25% chance of being incorrect with no possible statement about <i>how</i> incorrect it may be. |
+ | |||
+ | The title text mentions an individual called "Evangeline the Adulterator", who [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/adulterate adulterates] their drug doses. If this happened, the researchers would not even be sure the patients received the dosages (or exacting medicines/placebos) as prescribed, and the study methodology itself would be in doubt. | ||
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | + | In two panels, labeled "Regular Uncertainty" and "Epistemic Uncertainty," Megan stands in front of a data presentation. | |
− | + | :[Panel titled 'Regular Uncertainty'. Meagan standing in front of a presentation of data with error bars.] | |
− | :[ | ||
:Megan: Our study found the drug was 74% effective, with a confidence interval from 63% to 81%. | :Megan: Our study found the drug was 74% effective, with a confidence interval from 63% to 81%. | ||
− | |||
− | :[ | + | :[Panel titled 'Epistemic Uncertainty'. Megan standing in front of a presentation of data with a silhouette labelled with a question mark, with 3 confidence intervals. The first says '73 (transition arrow) 74%??', the second '47 (arrow) 74%??', and the third '0 (arrow) 74%??'] |
− | :Megan: Our study found the drug to be 74% effective. | + | :Megan: Our study found the drug to be 74% effective. -- However, there is a 1 in 4 chance that our study was modified by George the Data Tamperer, whose whims are unpredictable. |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
{{comic discussion}} | {{comic discussion}} | ||
− | |||
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]] | [[Category:Comics featuring Megan]] | ||
[[Category:Statistics]] | [[Category:Statistics]] | ||
− | [[Category: | + | [[Category:Research Papers]] |
[[Category:Biology]] | [[Category:Biology]] |