this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
224 points (97.1% liked)

Science Memes

10923 readers
2766 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mkwt 25 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Adding onto this. p < 0.05 is the somewhat arbitrary standard that many journals have for being able to publish a result at all.

Is you do an experiment to see we whether X affects Y, and get a p = 0.05, you can say, "Either X affects Y, or it doesn't and an unlikely fluke event occurred during this experiment that had a 1 in 20 chance."

Usually, this kind of thing is publishable, but we've decided we don't want to read the paper if that number gets any higher than 1 in 20. No one wants to read the article on, "We failed to determine whether X has an effect on Y or not."

[–] Wilzax 11 points 2 months ago

Which is sad because a lot of science is just ruling things out. We should still publish papers that say that if we do an experiment with too small of a sample, we get an inconclusive result, because that starts to put bounds on how strongly a thing gets affected, if an effect occurs at all.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's a shame. Negative results are very important to the process.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Especially considering that PDFs can be just a few Mb, and I doubt people will care if they're not cached locally.