3 ms·
Finding an indicative difference in a tiny, yet random sample appears to have accomplished more than the guy yelling "small sample size" - and, which I find iro
by mar77i 7y ago
Finding an indicative difference in a tiny, yet random sample appears to have accomplished more than the guy yelling "small sample size" - and, which I find ironic - "waste!" here. They managed to add a tiny bit of contrast to a picture that's totally blank, and provide 15 pixels of data, please explain how that's supposed to be worthless?
By the same logic, if I manage to cure an extremely rare type of cancer under certain circumstances when it's detected early on, I get fired for having too little success? I mean, what? Seriously?
By all means, prove them wrong, but stop the yelling. That's even more worthless than any form of pioneering research.
- lal 7y agoIt hasn't been established whether this has "accomplished" anything at all or if it's a false positive. That's what's being discussed in the Twitter thread.
- RhodesianHunter 7y agoIt has opened an avenue for future research that has better than "monkeys throwing darts" odds, which is an accomplishment.
- astazangasta 7y agoBecause you can easily find "a tiny bit of contrast" by comparing any two things; there will always be differences. this doesn't demonstrate that it isn't just noise and this difference is biologically and clinically meaningful. Also, "the yelling" is called peer review. It's the entire basis of science.
- mar77i 7y agoI'd imagine "peer review" would be along the lines of taking another set of samples and comparing results, but maybe that's just me.
- doinathing 7y agoPeer review does not involve trying to replicated the results as far as I'm aware... it's just commentary, hopefully by qualified people, on the perceived standard of the work at hand.