2268: Further Research is Needed - Revision history

Lp0 on fire: removed Category:Science using HotCat

2025-12-13T12:18:49Z

removed Category:Science using HotCat

172.68.205.123: /* Transcript */ A "cutout" is something else. But "cut out" doesn't really work, either. Try this? (Also fix typo.)

2025-03-30T20:05:31Z

‎Transcript: A "cutout" is something else. But "cut out" doesn't really work, either. Try this? (Also fix typo.)

172.71.214.210: /* Transcript */

2025-03-30T19:31:44Z

‎Transcript

162.158.158.126: /* Explanation */

2024-11-21T03:15:11Z

‎Explanation

Elektrizikekswerk: /* Transcript */ Changes to making the transcipt more verbatim instead of descriptive

2024-07-04T08:17:32Z

‎Transcript: Changes to making the transcipt more verbatim instead of descriptive

172.70.160.167: /* Trivia */

2024-04-30T09:39:58Z

‎Trivia

Nitpicking: /* Explanation */ "belie" means "to deceive, to tell a lie". As opposed to "belay", which means, "Stop working after you complete your current task".

2024-03-10T02:55:44Z

‎Explanation: "belie" means "to deceive, to tell a lie". As opposed to "belay", which means, "Stop working after you complete your current task".

172.69.42.131: /* Explanation */ link

2022-09-28T14:02:58Z

‎Explanation: link

Natg19: /* Trivia */

2022-08-09T01:51:00Z

‎Trivia

Theusaf: Reverted edits by Donald Trump (talk) to last revision by CRLF

2022-05-26T19:58:10Z

Reverted edits by Donald Trump (talk) to last revision by CRLF

Show changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:18, 13 December 2025
Line 39:		Line 39:
	{{comic discussion}}		{{comic discussion}}

−	~~[[Category:Science]]~~
	[[Category:Scientific research]]		[[Category:Scientific research]]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 ==Transcript==
-:[A panel, representing an excerpt from a scholarly journal, with the last two sentences clearly visible, as well as the beginning of a references section. The text is written with normal capitalization rather than in all caps. The last reference is partally cutout.]
+:[A panel, representing an excerpt from a scholarly journal, with the last two sentences clearly visible, as well as the beginning of a references section. The text is written with normal capitalization rather than in all caps. The last reference is partially below the panel's edge.]
 :We believe this resolves all remaining questions on this topic. No further research is needed.
 :[horizontal line]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 ==Transcript==
-:[A panel, representing an excerpt from a scholarly journal, with the last two sentences clearly visible, as well as the beginning of a references section. The text is written with normal capitalization rather than in all caps.]
+:[A panel, representing an excerpt from a scholarly journal, with the last two sentences clearly visible, as well as the beginning of a references section. The text is written with normal capitalization rather than in all caps. The last reference is partally cutout.]
 :We believe this resolves all remaining questions on this topic. No further research is needed.
 :[horizontal line]

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:15, 21 November 2024
Line 14:		Line 14:

	Perhaps the statement most like this made by a real scientist was by {{w\|Albert A. Michelson}}, at the 1894 dedication of the University of Chicago's Reyerson Physical Laboratory: "[I]t seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established and that further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the phenomena which come under our notice." (Variants of this statement are sometimes misattributed to {{w\|William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin}}.) Even this statement is couched in much less certainty than the concluding statement presented in this comic strip, and sure enough, just eleven years later, {{w\|Albert Einstein}} wrote his {{w\|Annus Mirabilis papers}}. These four papers explained the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, special relativity, and mass-energy equivalence, turning established physics on its head. Ironically, Michelson made this statement despite the fact that he himself had upset a major of notion of established physics just seven years before, when the {{w\|Michelson-Morley experiment}} demonstrated that the speed of light was constant, disproving the {{w\|Aether theories}} then prevalent in physics. This result in turn was part of the inspiration for Einstein's theory of special relativity.		Perhaps the statement most like this made by a real scientist was by {{w\|Albert A. Michelson}}, at the 1894 dedication of the University of Chicago's Reyerson Physical Laboratory: "[I]t seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established and that further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the phenomena which come under our notice." (Variants of this statement are sometimes misattributed to {{w\|William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin}}.) Even this statement is couched in much less certainty than the concluding statement presented in this comic strip, and sure enough, just eleven years later, {{w\|Albert Einstein}} wrote his {{w\|Annus Mirabilis papers}}. These four papers explained the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, special relativity, and mass-energy equivalence, turning established physics on its head. Ironically, Michelson made this statement despite the fact that he himself had upset a major of notion of established physics just seven years before, when the {{w\|Michelson-Morley experiment}} demonstrated that the speed of light was constant, disproving the {{w\|Aether theories}} then prevalent in physics. This result in turn was part of the inspiration for Einstein's theory of special relativity.
		+
		+	While not strictly research, mathematical papers often conclusively prove something as a verifiable fact, meaning that "further research" (or study) is often not needed (unless of course the results create more questions to be answered).

	==Transcript==		==Transcript==

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 ==Transcript==
-:[A panel, representing an excerpt from a scholarly journal, with two sentences clearly visible. Below the text is one more readable word, with a horizontal line below it, and then four numbered lines with unreadable text. The text is written with normal capitalization rather than in all caps.]
+:[A panel, representing an excerpt from a scholarly journal, with the last two sentences clearly visible, as well as the beginning of a references section. The text is written with normal capitalization rather than in all caps.]
 :We believe this resolves all remaining questions on this topic. No further research is needed.
 :References
-:1.
+:1.[unreadable text]
-:2.
+:2.[unreadable text]
-:3.
+:3.[unreadable text]
-:4.
+:4.[unreadable text]
 :[Caption below the panel:]

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 ==Trivia==
-* The mentioned closure of scientific papers seems to be iconic enough to have an {{w|Further research is needed|Wikipedia article of its own}}. That article, in turn, points to this page as an "in culture" reference.
+* The mentioned closure of scientific papers seems to be iconic enough to have an {{w|Further research is needed|Wikipedia article of its own}}. That article, in turn, points to this comic as an "in culture" reference.
 * There was a scientific paper by James C. Coyne and Eric van Sonderen from University of Groningen, titled ''[https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/6774405/Coyne_2012_J_Psychosom_Res.pdf No further research needed]'', on the necessity of abandoning the Hospital and Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS).
 * In 2020, a study titled "Effect of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin on the mortality of COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis" included the text "Our results suggest that there is no need for further studies evaluating these molecules".

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 In most scientific fields, it's very common to end research papers with the caveat that "{{w|further research is needed}}", or words to that effect. This is particularly true when reporting results on a topic that's not well studied, and in which there's not enough literature to form a broad consensus. This is a very reasonable suggestion, an individual research project may produce results that suggest a certain conclusion, but it would be foolhardy to take something as established fact based on a single study. Individual studies may produce misleading information, they may have flaws that don't become evident until later, they may be based on assumptions that don't hold up, or the results may end up having an alternate explanation (as when a correlation is found, but does not establish specific causation). It's all too common for science reporters, particularly in low-quality outlets, to draw broad and bold conclusions from a single study, but actual scientists quickly learn to be more cautious. Peer-reviewed papers will generally make clear that conclusions are tentative, and may be modified or even overturned by future research.
-This comic's fictional paper, however, ends with a statement that the paper has resolved all the problems about its topic, and that no more research is necessary. Humorously, the authors are so confident in their research skills that they believe that they have solved all the problems in that particular topic that can be solved. Munroe jokes that he'd like to see researchers with "the guts" to make such a proclamation. In real life, doing so would likely damage the reputation of the study's authors, because it would belie both a breathtaking arrogance and a lack of understanding of the research process. If nothing else, studies need to be replicated, to establish that the initial data gathering was accurate. In addition, no single study could realistically address every aspect, variation and complication in a given topic. It's simply not feasible that a single paper could "[resolve] all remaining questions" on any given topic, and making such a ridiculous claim would badly damage a researcher's credibility. At the same time, if no further research were necessary, every researcher in the field, including the author who wrote the study, would need to either change fields or change careers. The title text ironically states that "further research" ''is'' indeed needed to understand how the researchers who wrote the paper were able to resolve all the problems in that topic or field, thus allowing the researchers to justify future funding for their research.
+This comic's fictional paper, however, ends with a statement that the paper has resolved all the problems about its topic, and that no more research is necessary. Humorously, the authors are so confident in their research skills that they believe that they have solved all the problems in that particular topic that can be solved. Munroe jokes that he'd like to see researchers with "the guts" to make such a proclamation. In real life, doing so would likely damage the reputation of the study's authors, because it would reveal both a breathtaking arrogance and a lack of understanding of the research process. If nothing else, studies need to be replicated, to establish that the initial data gathering was accurate. In addition, no single study could realistically address every aspect, variation and complication in a given topic. It's simply not feasible that a single paper could "[resolve] all remaining questions" on any given topic, and making such a ridiculous claim would badly damage a researcher's credibility. At the same time, if no further research were necessary, every researcher in the field, including the author who wrote the study, would need to either change fields or change careers. The title text ironically states that "further research" ''is'' indeed needed to understand how the researchers who wrote the paper were able to resolve all the problems in that topic or field, thus allowing the researchers to justify future funding for their research.
 Perhaps the statement most like this made by a real scientist was by {{w|Albert A. Michelson}}, at the 1894 dedication of the University of Chicago's Reyerson Physical Laboratory: "[I]t seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established and that further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the phenomena which come under our notice." (Variants of this statement are sometimes misattributed to {{w|William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin}}.) Even this statement is couched in much less certainty than the concluding statement presented in this comic strip, and sure enough, just eleven years later, {{w|Albert Einstein}} wrote his {{w|Annus Mirabilis papers}}. These four papers explained the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, special relativity, and mass-energy equivalence, turning established physics on its head. Ironically, Michelson made this statement despite the fact that he himself had upset a major of notion of established physics just seven years before, when the {{w|Michelson-Morley experiment}} demonstrated that the speed of light was constant, disproving the {{w|Aether theories}} then prevalent in physics. This result in turn was part of the inspiration for Einstein's theory of special relativity.

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 ==Explanation==
-In most scientific fields, it's very common to end research papers with the caveat that "more research is needed", or words to that effect. This is particularly true when reporting results on a topic that's not well studied, and in which there's not enough literature to form a broad consensus. This is a very reasonable suggestion, an individual research project may produce results that suggest a certain conclusion, but it would be foolhardy to take something as established fact based on a single study. Individual studies may produce misleading information, they may have flaws that don't become evident until later, they may be based on assumptions that don't hold up, or the results may end up having an alternate explanation (as when a correlation is found, but does not establish specific causation). It's all too common for science reporters, particularly in low-quality outlets, to draw broad and bold conclusions from a single study, but actual scientists quickly learn to be more cautious. Peer-reviewed papers will generally make clear that conclusions are tentative, and may be modified or even overturned by future research.
+In most scientific fields, it's very common to end research papers with the caveat that "{{w|further research is needed}}", or words to that effect. This is particularly true when reporting results on a topic that's not well studied, and in which there's not enough literature to form a broad consensus. This is a very reasonable suggestion, an individual research project may produce results that suggest a certain conclusion, but it would be foolhardy to take something as established fact based on a single study. Individual studies may produce misleading information, they may have flaws that don't become evident until later, they may be based on assumptions that don't hold up, or the results may end up having an alternate explanation (as when a correlation is found, but does not establish specific causation). It's all too common for science reporters, particularly in low-quality outlets, to draw broad and bold conclusions from a single study, but actual scientists quickly learn to be more cautious. Peer-reviewed papers will generally make clear that conclusions are tentative, and may be modified or even overturned by future research.
 This comic's fictional paper, however, ends with a statement that the paper has resolved all the problems about its topic, and that no more research is necessary. Humorously, the authors are so confident in their research skills that they believe that they have solved all the problems in that particular topic that can be solved. Munroe jokes that he'd like to see researchers with "the guts" to make such a proclamation. In real life, doing so would likely damage the reputation of the study's authors, because it would belie both a breathtaking arrogance and a lack of understanding of the research process. If nothing else, studies need to be replicated, to establish that the initial data gathering was accurate. In addition, no single study could realistically address every aspect, variation and complication in a given topic. It's simply not feasible that a single paper could "[resolve] all remaining questions" on any given topic, and making such a ridiculous claim would badly damage a researcher's credibility. At the same time, if no further research were necessary, every researcher in the field, including the author who wrote the study, would need to either change fields or change careers. The title text ironically states that "further research" ''is'' indeed needed to understand how the researchers who wrote the paper were able to resolve all the problems in that topic or field, thus allowing the researchers to justify future funding for their research.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:51, 9 August 2022
Line 37:		Line 37:

	[[Category:Science]]		[[Category:Science]]
−	[[Category:~~Research Papers~~]]	+	[[Category:Scientific research]]