xkcd would have made it funnier. posted by leotrotsky at 5:47 AM on November 9, 2012
but it's still pretty good posted by leotrotsky at 5:47 AM on November 9, 2012
I'd put those who publish partial methods in the 8th circle too.
Have spent too much time chasing friggen preps, because some bright bunny left something out of their method to prevent anyone else from getting too far ahead. Bastards. posted by bonehead at 5:52 AM on November 9, 2012 [1 favorite]
Very cute. I may use this in my research methods class (without attribution, natch) the next time I'm a) teaching ethics and b) in a bad mood. posted by Palquito at 5:53 AM on November 9, 2012
They say that hell is other people, but, apparently, if you are a bad bad researcher, hell is other people who are just like you! posted by GenjiandProust at 6:39 AM on November 9, 2012
Is there a tenth circle for climate change deniers and the like? I didn't see it in the article. posted by double block and bleed at 7:15 AM on November 9, 2012
Is there a tenth circle for climate change deniers and the like? I didn't see it in the article.
I'm guessing that's because the article was about science rather than magical thinking. posted by TedW at 7:18 AM on November 9, 2012 [4 favorites]
I suspect a number of humanities types are also hanging out in the sixth circle. posted by thomas j wise at 7:44 AM on November 9, 2012
Fifth Circle: Creative Use of Outliers
Those who “cleaned up” their results by excluding inconvenient data points are condemned here. Demons pluck out their hairs one by one, each time explaining that the sinner is better off without that hair, because there was something wrong with it.
I had a boss who did that. I found another job after 3 months. posted by francesca too at 4:30 PM on November 9, 2012
« Older Ken Liu's "Paper Menagerie", the first work of fic... | Human chorionic gonadotropin (... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by leotrotsky at 5:47 AM on November 9, 2012