Current Events > *is confronted with scientific study*

(+) Yeah! (+)

*doesn't like the conclusion*
*complain about sample size*

My pet peeve.
---

Imagine believing scientists
---

Ugh I know exactly what you mean, people pull the same crap when I try to sing the graces of amino acids supplements
---

C_Pain posted...

Imagine believing scientists

Stupid science bitches!
---

COVxy posted...

*doesn't like the conclusion*
*complain about sample size*

My pet peeve.

I'm pretty sure Insane Clown Posse has established that motherfuckin' scientists are always lying and getting people pissed.
---

C_Pain posted...

Imagine believing scientists

it's literally the new religion. did you know scientists think we live in a simulation?
---

foreveraIone posted...

C_Pain posted...

Imagine believing scientists

it's literally the new religion. did you know scientists think we live in a simulation?

that shit is literally "I don't understand. Therefore: God" the science version and pisses me off.
---

C_Pain posted...

Imagine believing scientists

Imagine believing people who have spent years of their lives researching their area of study, and are meticulous about finding their results.
---

who posted
---

Sample size complaints are only one step up from "The study is flawed because I don't agree with the results".

Also just curious CovXY, but have you heard of the GRIM test?

ChromaticAngel posted...

foreveraIone posted...

C_Pain posted...

Imagine believing scientists

it's literally the new religion. did you know scientists think we live in a simulation?

that shit is literally "I don't understand. Therefore: God" the science version and pisses me off.

Yeah, it's just religion wrapped up in some probabilistic "formulas".
---

Anteaterking posted...

Sample size complaints are only one step up from "The study is flawed because I don't agree with the results".

Also just curious CovXY, but have you heard of the GRIM test?

ChromaticAngel posted...

foreveraIone posted...

C_Pain posted...

Imagine believing scientists

it's literally the new religion. did you know scientists think we live in a simulation?

that shit is literally "I don't understand. Therefore: God" the science version and pisses me off.

Yeah, it's just religion wrapped up in some probabilistic "formulas".

formulas predicated on a conditional axiom that cannot be falsified and zero evidence to which suggests the condition is true.
---

gross it's CA
---

COVxy posted...

*complain about sample size*

sample size is a real thing
but also who you're sampling is important

you can't possibly disagree that polling 200 white american suburbanites in new hampshire will yield a different result from polling 200 el salvadorians in florida
---

foreveraIone posted...

C_Pain posted...

Imagine believing scientists

it's literally the new religion. did you know scientists think we live in a simulation?

https://d3jkudlc7u70kh.cloudfront.net/popcorn-snack-fact.jpg
---

Complaining about sample size is how you dismiss the daily examples of far-left stupidity on college campuses.
---

tbh. science and tech have had this quasi-religous....vibe to it the whole time

like the people who think we will get space colonies and travel to other stars?

probably not going to happen.
---

Anteaterking posted...

Also just curious CovXY, but have you heard of the GRIM test?

No I hadn't, that's a pretty interesting idea though. Seemingly going to catch minor errors in reporting, but occasionally if someone is really lazy at fabricating data.

Bok_Choi posted...

sample size is a real thing
but also who you're sampling is important

9/10 samping technique is much more relevant to talk about than sample size.

But there's 2 points I want to mention, which all revolve around valid criticism in science:
1. Complaints about sample size must be justified statistically. Sampling is a counter intuitive procedure, and the required sample size for most studies is much lower than most people would intuit.
2. Valid criticisms always come in the form of: "this was incorrect, which could lead to your conclusion x even when the true underlying result is y."

"This was incorrect," is a meaningless criticism, unless you can link it directly to the manner in which it'll influence the conclusion. So if the study is sampling from Americans, you need a pretty good reason that the result won't generalize to el salvadorians.

The Admiral posted...

Complaining about sample size is how you dismiss the daily examples of far-left stupidity on college campuses.

No, I complain about biased sampling, not sample size. If you sample for a quality, you are guaranteed to only have that quality in your sample, given the quality exists within your population.
---

foreveraIone posted...

C_Pain posted...

Imagine believing scientists

it's literally the new religion. did you know scientists think we live in a simulation?

What an incredibly stupid thing to say. Why discredit yourself so quickly?
---

I'm more concerned about statistical significance and how some people "groom" their data.
---

COVxy posted...

No I hadn't, that's a pretty interesting idea though. Seemingly going to catch minor errors in reporting, but occasionally if someone is really lazy at falsifying data.

Yeah, I learned about it because it was relevant to a unit I'm teaching my class right now. It seemed more applicable in your sorts of studies versus something like polls (due to the expense of having a study involving more than 100 people when you are actually doing science).

It's neat, but is obviously really easy to work around if you are "intelligently" falsifying data.
---

Anteaterking posted...

(due to the expense of having a study

Yeah, truth here. I have a 10 subject study proposed in my dissertation that will likely cost 50-60k just in MRI time alone.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Does it have to be a university or hospital MRI?

We have our own dedicated research scanner at the university (or was a dedicated research scanner, wasn't making enough money so now a couple of days are booked for clinical a week).
---

The Admiral posted...

Complaining about sample size is how you dismiss the daily examples of far-left stupidity on college campuses.

http://www.theliberal.co.uk/liberal_test/images/issue13/help_mom.jpg

COVxy posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Does it have to be a university or hospital MRI?

We have our own dedicated research scanner at the university (or was a dedicated research scanner, wasn't making enough money so now a couple of days are booked for clinical a week).

Gotta pay to keep those magnets cool! After our program at the national lab got cut, I used our local hospital's MRI for my work. I did materials research and used the MRI for orienting nanomaterials.

Regarding the topic at hand, I think it is perfectly healthy to look at each facet of the research. Sample size and population questions are quite valid imo.

C7D posted...

Gotta pay to keep those magnets cool!

This is true, maintenance and tech salary.

Though, I think a smarter plan would be to let the scanner stay red in the budget for a while, until a sufficient number of PI's get large R01s such that the scanner then becomes a sustainable cost. Looks bad for too long though, universities don't go for that type of risk.

C7D posted...

Sample size and population questions are quite valid imo.

Yes, but with the caveats:
COVxy posted...

1. Complaints about sample size must be justified statistically. Sampling is a counter intuitive procedure, and the required sample size for most studies is much lower than most people would intuit.
2. Valid criticisms always come in the form of: "this was incorrect, which could lead to your conclusion x even when the true underlying result is y."

"This was incorrect," is a meaningless criticism, unless you can link it directly to the manner in which it'll influence the conclusion. So if the study is sampling from Americans, you need a pretty good reason that the result won't generalize to el salvadorians.

Largely, criticism that is unaccompanied by implications for the conclusion most often simply come from motivated reasoning, contradicts with something you feel invested in, or even just comes at a large Bayesian surprise. Either way, the type of sample size criticism referenced in this topic is just shallow.
---

EyeWontBeFooled posted...

and are meticulous about finding their results.

See, that's the problem, they really aren't. Scientists are still people, who can be blinded by their ideas or money. It's very common for scientists to throw out data that doesn't fit their model or try to contort data to force it to fit.

Not to say scientists are wrong, simply they're flawed and follow the money and find corresponding research that draws the same conclusions.
---

COVxy posted...

C7D posted...

Gotta pay to keep those magnets cool!

This is true, maintenance and tech salary.

Though, I think a smarter plan would be to let the scanner stay red in the budget for a while, until a sufficient number of PI's get large R01s such that the scanner then becomes a sustainable cost. Looks bad for too long though, universities don't go for that type of risk.

I looked into starting my own manufacturing company after graduation on the basis of the materials I developed. I looked into buying an old MRI machine for producing my materials. 25k a month was the basic maintenance contract. That crap gets expensive.

I Like Toast posted...

It's very common for scientists to throw out data that doesn't fit their model or try to contort data to force it to fit.

I would not say that data manipulation like that is common at all.

There are common shitty research practices, driven by an extremely competitive environments, but deliberately manipulating data is much much more rare.
---

COVxy posted...

but deliberately manipulating data is much much more rare

Deliberately manipulating data is basically every commercial study in existence. But data manipulation is a different subject.

But to your point, yes it depends on what you define common as (which attributes to that very data manipulation issue), is common something that happens most of the time, or is common something that happens with enough frequency you're not surprised at it happening regularly.
---

I Like Toast posted...

Deliberately manipulating data is basically every commercial study in existence.

I mean, I don't know about this claim, but none-the-less, very little of the scientific literature is commercial in nature.
---

COVxy posted...

*doesn't like the conclusion*
*complain about sample size*

My pet peeve.

sounds like someone just spanked you HYUCK HYUCK

Up.
---

People in the actual scientific literature even get annoyed by shallow complaints about sample size:
http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/~karl/Ten%20ironic%20rules%20for%20non-statistical%20reviewers.pdf

(Also, enjoy the snarkiest scientific publication that you will ever read, if you so choose to)
---