1071
Replication crisis, my arse (mander.xyz)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
97 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

If we're taking them at their word (and not the silly joke it is) technically they could have removed 7 ingredients so far, with only 2 left, while still having diarrhea each time. In that context, say next time they try the dish with only 1 ingredient and the don't have diarrhea, then they have the likely suspect. They could then try the dish with every ingredient except the suspected allergen to confirm it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    That's the logic I was avoiding, because although it's heuristically likely in real life that there's only one culprit – and that you could get Bowl 9 with ingredients a, b, c, d, e, f, and g to show it's definitely h or i if you don't get sick – there's also a chance you have diarrhea on that Bowl 9 and gain very little information. There's no conclusiveness to the variable isolation, so it's not sound from an information theoretic perspective.

    Actually, if you assume a comically unlikely worst-case scenario where all of the ingredients cause diarrhea, that sort of recursive algorithm might be the most amount of diarrhea you can get while still gaining information on each bowl.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    By neither, I meant the cause could be out of the scope of the variables being tested. Eg. It could be something the cook does, or a particular spice, or the subject may have an ongoing condition they're unaware of, or be doing something before or after lunch which causes it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent