2755: Effect Size - Revision history

Kynde: Removing news as bad/good news should not be included

2026-02-08T17:19:09Z

Removing news as bad/good news should not be included

Kynde: Category:News

2026-02-07T14:55:26Z

Category:News

172.68.35.118: Just a quick typo I noticed.

2025-04-29T19:20:42Z

Just a quick typo I noticed.

108.162.241.170: /* Explanation */ change to template

2024-01-12T17:18:21Z

‎Explanation: change to template

Xurkitree10: /* Transcript */

2023-04-25T05:25:33Z

‎Transcript

Xurkitree10: /* Explanation */

2023-04-16T10:20:56Z

‎Explanation

172.71.246.99: Liar paradox

2023-04-03T12:33:02Z

Liar paradox

Asdf: /* Transcript */ rewording, cat

2023-03-29T15:38:22Z

‎Transcript: rewording, cat

Quantum7: /* Explanation */ convert pages to studies given 11 studies/page

2023-03-29T05:40:23Z

‎Explanation: convert pages to studies given 11 studies/page

DKMell: punctuation fixes

2023-03-28T18:50:43Z

punctuation fixes

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 {{comic discussion}}
 [[Category:Statistics]]
 [[Category:Science]]

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 {{comic discussion}}
 [[Category:Statistics]]
 [[Category:Science]]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 The joke lies in the absurdity of the claim that "all of science" can be analyzed at all. Science is not a singular term that can be subcategorized in such a manner, but is rather hundreds of different fields of study, many of which have little or no overlap. Doing a meta-analysis of geology and philosophy, for example, would be patently ridiculous, so the 53,589 (or 210,000) page study is comical in its very existence, much less conclusion. In addition the comic conflates two meanings of "significant": the statistical meaning, and the more everyday meaning of importance or noteworthiness.
-Additionally to the absurdity, one can see the whole joke as an instance of the {{w|Liar paradox}}: if one considers that the conclusion of the meta-analysis is that "science" is statistically unable to provide information on the truth of a statement, then the meta-analysis itself (in it has been made following the general principles of rigor and methods of "science") is subject to its conclusion. Hence, the conclusion of the meta-analysis might have nothing to do with the truth, and "science" might well be significant after all. But if it is, then the present meta-analysis should be considered significant as well and one should believe its conclusion, etc.
+Additionally to the absurdity, one can see the whole joke as an instance of the {{w|Liar paradox}}: if one considers that the conclusion of the meta-analysis is that "science" is statistically unable to provide information on the truth of a statement, then the meta-analysis itself (if it has been made following the general principles of rigor and methods of "science") is subject to its conclusion. Hence, the conclusion of the meta-analysis might have nothing to do with the truth, and "science" might well be significant after all. But if it is, then the present meta-analysis should be considered significant as well and one should believe its conclusion, etc.
 In the title text, Randall reports that {{w|subgroup analysis}} is ongoing. The joke here is that since all scientific studies are subsets of the overall meta-analysis, every field of scientific endeavor can be separately assessed by constraining the subgroup to include only studies in that field. Hence the subgroup analysis could be considered to include analyses of every individual area or question that scientists have made subject to statistical studies. Again, analyzing any subgroup would lump together studies that measured very different things and hence would still be meaningless.

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 The joke lies in the absurdity of the claim that "all of science" can be analyzed at all. Science is not a singular term that can be subcategorized in such a manner, but is rather hundreds of different fields of study, many of which have little or no overlap. Doing a meta-analysis of geology and philosophy, for example, would be patently ridiculous, so the 53,589 (or 210,000) page study is comical in its very existence, much less conclusion. In addition the comic conflates two meanings of "significant": the statistical meaning, and the more everyday meaning of importance or noteworthiness.
-Additionally to the absurdity, one can see the whole joke as an instance of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox Liar paradox]: if one considers that the conclusion of the meta-analysis is that "science" is statistically unable to provide information on the truth of a statement, then the meta-analysis itself (in it has been made following the general principles of rigor and methods of "science") is subject to its conclusion. Hence, the conclusion of the meta-analysis might have nothing to do with the truth, and "science" might well be significant after all. But if it is, then the present meta-analysis should be considered significant as well and one should believe its conclusion, etc.
+Additionally to the absurdity, one can see the whole joke as an instance of the {{w|Liar paradox}}: if one considers that the conclusion of the meta-analysis is that "science" is statistically unable to provide information on the truth of a statement, then the meta-analysis itself (in it has been made following the general principles of rigor and methods of "science") is subject to its conclusion. Hence, the conclusion of the meta-analysis might have nothing to do with the truth, and "science" might well be significant after all. But if it is, then the present meta-analysis should be considered significant as well and one should believe its conclusion, etc.
 In the title text, Randall reports that {{w|subgroup analysis}} is ongoing. The joke here is that since all scientific studies are subsets of the overall meta-analysis, every field of scientific endeavor can be separately assessed by constraining the subgroup to include only studies in that field. Hence the subgroup analysis could be considered to include analyses of every individual area or question that scientists have made subject to statistical studies. Again, analyzing any subgroup would lump together studies that measured very different things and hence would still be meaningless.

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 ==Transcript==
 :Meta-analysis
 :Inclusion criteria: All studies

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:20, 16 April 2023
Line 10:		Line 10:

	==Explanation==		==Explanation==
−	~~{{incomplete\|Created by a Meta-Meta-Meta Analysis THAT'S JUST TOO [[917\|META]] - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}~~
	This comic outlines a {{w\|meta-analysis}}, or more aptly THE meta-analysis, as its inclusion criteria are simply all studies.		This comic outlines a {{w\|meta-analysis}}, or more aptly THE meta-analysis, as its inclusion criteria are simply all studies.

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:33, 3 April 2023
Line 22:		Line 22:

	The joke lies in the absurdity of the claim that "all of science" can be analyzed at all. Science is not a singular term that can be subcategorized in such a manner, but is rather hundreds of different fields of study, many of which have little or no overlap. Doing a meta-analysis of geology and philosophy, for example, would be patently ridiculous, so the 53,589 (or 210,000) page study is comical in its very existence, much less conclusion. In addition the comic conflates two meanings of "significant": the statistical meaning, and the more everyday meaning of importance or noteworthiness.		The joke lies in the absurdity of the claim that "all of science" can be analyzed at all. Science is not a singular term that can be subcategorized in such a manner, but is rather hundreds of different fields of study, many of which have little or no overlap. Doing a meta-analysis of geology and philosophy, for example, would be patently ridiculous, so the 53,589 (or 210,000) page study is comical in its very existence, much less conclusion. In addition the comic conflates two meanings of "significant": the statistical meaning, and the more everyday meaning of importance or noteworthiness.
		+
		+	Additionally to the absurdity, one can see the whole joke as an instance of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox Liar paradox]: if one considers that the conclusion of the meta-analysis is that "science" is statistically unable to provide information on the truth of a statement, then the meta-analysis itself (in it has been made following the general principles of rigor and methods of "science") is subject to its conclusion. Hence, the conclusion of the meta-analysis might have nothing to do with the truth, and "science" might well be significant after all. But if it is, then the present meta-analysis should be considered significant as well and one should believe its conclusion, etc.

	In the title text, Randall reports that {{w\|subgroup analysis}} is ongoing. The joke here is that since all scientific studies are subsets of the overall meta-analysis, every field of scientific endeavor can be separately assessed by constraining the subgroup to include only studies in that field. Hence the subgroup analysis could be considered to include analyses of every individual area or question that scientists have made subject to statistical studies. Again, analyzing any subgroup would lump together studies that measured very different things and hence would still be meaningless.		In the title text, Randall reports that {{w\|subgroup analysis}} is ongoing. The joke here is that since all scientific studies are subsets of the overall meta-analysis, every field of scientific endeavor can be separately assessed by constraining the subgroup to include only studies in that field. Hence the subgroup analysis could be considered to include analyses of every individual area or question that scientists have made subject to statistical studies. Again, analyzing any subgroup would lump together studies that measured very different things and hence would still be meaningless.

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 :Inclusion criteria: All studies
-:[A forest plot is shown. In the tab on the top right, there is a label "Page 53,589". On the right side of the plot, there is a vertical scrollbar where the bar is less than one quarter from the top. A horizontal axis centered on 0 is shown at the bottom and -1 and +1 on either side are labeled. In the middle of the plot, there is a dashed vertical line. On both sides of the vertical line in separate rows, there are black boxes of different sizes with horizontal bars of varying lengths on the sides of the boxes. Below the plot, slightly to the right of the vertical line, there is a black diamond wider than it is tall, labeled "0.17 (-0.14, 0.52)".]
+:[A forest plot is shown. In the tab on the top right, there is a label "Page 53,589". On the right side of the plot, there is a vertical scrollbar where the scroll box is about one quarter from the top. A horizontal axis centered on 0 is shown at the bottom and -1 and +1 on either side are labeled. In the middle of the plot, there is a dashed vertical line. On both sides of the vertical line in separate rows, there are black boxes of different sizes with horizontal bars of varying lengths on the sides of the boxes. Below the plot, slightly to the right of the vertical line, there is a black diamond wider than it is tall, labeled "0.17 (-0.14, 0.52)".]
 :[Caption below the panel:]
@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 [[Category:Statistics]]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 A meta-analysis, true to its name, is a statistical analysis of statistical analyses, usually those attempting to answer a single question. Meta-analyses are intended to account for possible individual error within each study, summarizing the general results of all of its studies in order to potentially draw a useful conclusion. For a meta-analysis to be possible, there must be some measured variable in common across the included studies.
-Here, the meta-analysis consists of a graph of {{w|effect sizes}} for what is allegedly every single study ever conducted. Accordingly, even page 53,589 of the meta-analysis is only about 1/4 of the total graph, as the scroll bar on the right is only about 1/4 of the way down; this makes the total included in the meta-analysis approximately 210,000 pages. Below the graph is an estimate of the "average effect" across all of these variables, the effect normally being the relationship being analyzed by the studies within a meta-analysis, though here it seems again to be just a conglomerate of all known effects, along with a (likely) 95% {{w|confidence interval}} for the findings of the meta-analysis. It's absurd to analyze all studies this way, as the variables that all of those studies measure are wildly different and it makes no sense whatsoever to average (or otherwise analyze) them together. [In addition, 210,000 scientific studies is much too small a number; a [https://www.stm-assoc.org/about-stm/ recent estimate] is that about 3 million papers are published ''each year'', and while not all of them would have a numerical hypothesis test, many others would have several such tests.]
+Here, the meta-analysis consists of a graph of {{w|effect sizes}} for what is allegedly every single study ever conducted. Accordingly, even page 53,589 of the meta-analysis is only about 1/4 of the total graph, as the scroll bar on the right is only about 1/4 of the way down; this makes the total included in the meta-analysis approximately 210,000 pages, or around 2.3 million studies. Below the graph is an estimate of the "average effect" across all of these variables, the effect normally being the relationship being analyzed by the studies within a meta-analysis, though here it seems again to be just a conglomerate of all known effects, along with a (likely) 95% {{w|confidence interval}} for the findings of the meta-analysis. It's absurd to analyze all studies this way, as the variables that all of those studies measure are wildly different and it makes no sense whatsoever to average (or otherwise analyze) them together. In addition, 2.3 million scientific studies is much too small a number; a [https://www.stm-assoc.org/about-stm/ recent estimate] is that about 3 million papers are published ''each year'', and while not all of them would have a numerical hypothesis test, many others would have several such tests.
 Statistical studies are produced by generating hypotheses and then testing those hypotheses. A meta-analysis of all studies would therefore include both studies where the original hypothesis turns out to be false, as well as studies where the original hypothesis is confirmed. Hypotheses that fail to be confirmed by studies are often discarded; however, these studies would still be included in this meta-analysis.

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 In the title text, Randall reports that {{w|subgroup analysis}} is ongoing. The joke here is that since all scientific studies are subsets of the overall meta-analysis, every field of scientific endeavor can be separately assessed by constraining the subgroup to include only studies in that field. Hence the subgroup analysis could be considered to include analyses of every individual area or question that scientists have made subject to statistical studies. Again, analyzing any subgroup would lump together studies that measured very different things and hence would still be meaningless.
-XKCD has previously considered the topic of subgroup analyses around the important issue of [[882|jelly beans]].  Subgroup analyses may be used as {{w|data_dredging}} or [[1478|p-hacking]] in order to identify anything that is "significant" and thus publishable.
+XKCD has previously considered the topic of subgroup analyses around the important issue of [[882|jelly beans]].  Subgroup analyses may be used as {{w|data dredging}} or [[1478|p-hacking]] in order to identify anything that is "significant" and thus publishable.
 ==Transcript==