Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ailment transmitted at sea has somehow made science less impactful.
Ahhh, "sea-borne bug", that makes sense, thanks!
alternatively seaborn as in where this insect was born. but an even weirder statement
Seaborn bug responsible for finding of declining disruptiveness in science
31–40 of 77 posts
Re: Seaborn bug responsible for finding of declining disruptiveness in science
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s enough to make you lose faith in science.
As opposed to? The original claim being asspulled then not reviewed at all because that would be science?
the GP I assume means science as a monolithic institution, as opposed to the pure idea of the scientific process in isolation
kind of like the difference between "trusting science" and "trusting THE science" if I had to hazard a guess
presumably he doesn't mean as opposed to "traditional ways of knowing"
Re: Seaborn bug responsible for finding of declining disruptiveness in science
#33I saw this headline and my first thought was that someone was claiming that a mind impacting virus that evolved in the ocean was causing scientists to do research with less ambition. Which is of course ridiculous lol. But a bug in a visualization library impacting science is also ridiculous.
Re: Seaborn bug responsible for finding of declining disruptiveness in science
#34Seaborn is a visualization library. No statistical tests should have been done with seaborn as an intermediate processing step. I guess they used some of the convenience functions as part of the data analysis. Seaborn is a final step tool, not a data analysis tool. That's an embarrassing lesson to learn post-publication.
Take a look at the linked chart in my other comment. Visualization is absolutely a driver during research, it isn’t just an embarrassing revelation. Charts killed the Challenger crew.
> Charts killed the Challenger crew.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8oG7ym6/
This is one of my favorite TikToks of all time, and you’ll see why. It goes into detail about how charts killed the Challenger crew. But the storytelling is second to none.
Re: Seaborn bug responsible for finding of declining disruptiveness in science
#35Bizarre. How do people make such big, splashy findings that can mess with people’s sense of optimism about science and innovation, without doing the simplest types of checks on their data and methodology.
Trash comment.
1st. Splashy often comes from the media, not the scientists
2nd. One of the ways we discover problems with data is by plotting. When the plot library has a bug that hides a problem, well shit.
3rd. They did check their own findings multiple ways. Mistakes happen. The biggest critics of scientific mistakes are often those that have never done science themselves. Its easy, and its a cheap play.
Re: Seaborn bug responsible for finding of declining disruptiveness in science
#36I hope that all the publications that celebrated the original work, like the Economist https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2023/01/04/..., Nature's news service https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04577-5, the FT https://www.ft.com/content/c8bfd3da-bf9d-4f9b-ab98-e9677f109..., and others spend as much time on correcting the record as they did on promoting the idea that science is broken.
And I hope the original authors tell Nature to retract their paper. It's already highly influential unfortunately.
Re: Seaborn bug responsible for finding of declining disruptiveness in science
#37Bizarre. How do people make such big, splashy findings that can mess with people’s sense of optimism about science and innovation, without doing the simplest types of checks on their data and methodology.
Confirmation bias? It’s easy to run with the assumption you had at the back of your mind when your experiment seems to confirm it. I have definitely done that with benchmarks / profiles. It’s probably even easier when the incentives encourage “the find”.
They checked their result multiple ways. The missed a bug. Its not like computer bugs never happen or anything
Re: Seaborn bug responsible for finding of declining disruptiveness in science
#38Re: Seaborn bug responsible for finding of declining disruptiveness in science
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Confirmation bias? It’s easy to run with the assumption you had at the back of your mind when your experiment seems to confirm it. I have definitely done that with benchmarks / profiles. It’s probably even easier when the incentives encourage “the find”.
They checked their result multiple ways. The missed a bug. Its not like computer bugs never happen or anything
The real question is, what will they do now?
Will they own up to it and retract their broken paper that's eroding people's confidence in funding science at the highest levels? This has been an incredibly widely read and influential paper already.
I have my doubts that the authors will accept that their paper is bogus.
Particularly because the lead author landed a faculty position at a good institution based exclusively on this junk paper.
Re: Seaborn bug responsible for finding of declining disruptiveness in science
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
They checked their result multiple ways. The missed a bug. Its not like computer bugs never happen or anything
The real question is, what will they do now? Will they own up to it and retract their broken paper that's eroding people's confidence in funding science at the highest levels? This has been an incredibly widely read and influential paper already. I have my doubts that the authors will accept that their paper is bogus. Particularly because the lead author landed a faculty position at a good institution based exclusive…
umm. probably.