Seed Media Group

Pharyngula

Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal

Search

Profile

pzm_profile_pic.jpg
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
zf_pharyngula.jpg …and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
a longer profile of yours truly
my calendar
Nature Network
RichardDawkins Network
facebook
MySpace
Twitter
Atheist Nexus
the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)

I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

tbbadge.gif
scarlet_A.png
I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Random Quote

(Complete listing)

The theistic hypothesis does not differentially explain specific phenomena in the way that successful scientific theories do: it does not explain why we have these phenomena rather than others.

J.L. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism (New York: Oxford University Press), p. 138.

Recent Posts

A Taste of Pharyngula

(Complete listing)

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

(Complete listing)

Other Information

Subscribe via Email

Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.

Sign me up!

« You, too, can be an agent of selection | Main | Global warming is good for many living things »

Any science entrepreneurs out there?

Category: Humor
Posted on: October 1, 2007 10:39 AM, by PZ Myers

Here's a strategy to make money from your expertise!

lucrative_science.gif

There is some bad news, though.

  • It's been done many times already, so there is "competition". There doesn't seem to be a lot of competition, though, and the market for this kind of "science" seems insatiable.
  • Wrong answers and bad answers seem to be much more valuable than truth and accuracy.

TrackBacks

(TrackBack URL for this entry: )

Comments

#1

My tale:

1) Develop mathematical models for electrostatic interactions between water molecules.

2) ....?

3) Profit.

Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 1, 2007 10:43 AM

#2

Now if, in the last panel, Danae had been saying, "Test me," instead of "Trust me," she'd be more likely to have a product to sell instead of just a fra-- never mind.

Posted by: Ken Cope | October 1, 2007 10:58 AM

#3

If people are wary of science, this could be one reason why. I even catch myself thinking, well, who paid for that study? It shouldn't matter if the science is solid, but there's a lot of bias out there.

Posted by: fontor | October 1, 2007 11:06 AM

#4

This is (unfortunately) the M.O. of too many ego-driven small biotech companies...especially the last line about wrong/bad answers being much more valuable than truth and accuracy.

Posted by: Avanyu | October 1, 2007 11:15 AM

#5

This hired guns of science for hire schtick would be much funnier if it wasn't true. Reminds me of Behe who is defending a biology textbook from Bob Jones U. in the California textbook case. For 20,000 bucks. Details at M. Dunford's The Questionable Authority and PT.

The biology textbook for kids looks like it was written by satan. It is not just wrong it is actively evil.

This is one time when believers have an advantage over atheists. ID doesn't exist but Diabolical Design certainly does.

Posted by: raven | October 1, 2007 11:36 AM

#6

You mean, it's not true that market forces will always select the best option? Damn!

Posted by: Zeno | October 1, 2007 12:15 PM

#7

It seems Behe is the new Eric von Daniken, exchanging an invisible man with a white beard for space aliens. Space aliens is how I've always dealt with I.D., as in "Prove it wasn't space aliens who started it all." I get less flack that way.

But the cartoon reminds me of one particular strange fellow who thought he could create an infinite compression hard drive if only he could come up with the right algorithm. I asked him if he had heard of one-way (mathematical) mapping, and went on my merry way.

Two days later, he approached me again and started screaming at me. I learned an important lesson there. Kooks are to be avoided, not encouraged.

Posted by: Mike | October 1, 2007 12:22 PM

#8

> Kooks are to be avoided, not encouraged.

Indeed, a personal rule of mine: Don't poke the nutters.

Posted by: misterbowen | October 1, 2007 12:36 PM

#9

People wouldn't have to muddy the waters if the truth weren't so darned inconvenient and...true.

Posted by: NC Paul | October 1, 2007 12:40 PM

#10

You mean, it's not true that market forces will always select the best option? Damn!

BLASPHEMER!

Posted by: Brownian | October 1, 2007 12:42 PM

#11

Zeno: Hard to find a universal "best" I'm afraid.

Look at the computer industry. So many shills making so many reports, all by some mysteriuos chance in favor of whoever pays their bills. If only their work could be used as a power source instead...

Posted by: Hank | October 1, 2007 1:04 PM

#12

Good gracious. Brownian is dogging my heels in the various threads. Either he's stalking me or ... he's just using me as an excuse to post more comments and remain in contention for the big 500,000 sweepstakes.

Or vice versa.

Posted by: Zeno | October 1, 2007 2:08 PM

#13

Gee PZ, I was going to buy the next generation of Ion cleansing and Toxin removal foot spa systems for 699$, guess it will make me feel good.
And the water changes colour as a proof of all the toxins that have gone out of my body, wonderful machine.

People tend to believe anyhing, provided :
- it makes you feel good to believe in it (the more expensive the device or service, the higher the probability that this point will be satisfied)
- it is grounded on some sort of common sense rationale
- there is some form of substaniation, usually refered to as "scientific", the validiy of which is is most case not important
-most potential target customer cannot verify the validity of the claims and will generally regard the recommendation of wise older gentlemen or ladies, politicians, movie stars, sportsmen, and kings as important

Posted by: negentropyeater | October 1, 2007 2:34 PM

#14

By no means am I claiming IT analysts are doing science though.

Posted by: Hank | October 1, 2007 2:47 PM

#15

If you plot the average number of comments acceped in the count over he last 30 min you will see it is at between 3 and 5/min. We are now missing 12 comments so that we should hi 500,000 within less than 2 minutes, now if there is a as minute surge, i EXPECT i SHOULD HIT. NOW

Posted by: negentropyeater | October 1, 2007 3:05 PM

#16

If you plot the average number of comments acceped in the count over he last 30 min you will see it is at between 3 and 5/min. We are now missing 6 comments so that we should hi 500,000 within less than 1 minutes, now if there is a as minute surge, i EXPECT i SHOULD HIT. NOW...

Posted by: negentropyeater | October 1, 2007 3:06 PM

#17

Does Negentropyeater really expect us to believe that #15 and #16 were an accidental double post?

Posted by: Zeno | October 1, 2007 4:51 PM

#18

It's a reprise of the old shady lawyer/accountant joke whose punchline is: "What do you *want* the answer to be?"

Posted by: jackd | October 2, 2007 4:40 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. Comments are moderated for spam, your comment may not appear immediately. Thanks for waiting.)





Having problems commenting? (UPDATED)

Blogs in the Network

Advertisement

Top Five: Readers' Picks

Search All Blogs

Science News From:

Science News from NYTimes.com