Dienekes has a nice post up on the follies and failures of historical population genetics. As he notes, part of the problem is that people really want to find x instead of !x, and with a statistical science that is really, really, bad.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
If you have not read it, go check out Nicholas Wade's article on doctored images in scientific publications. This is especially pertinent given the recent Hwang Woo Suk stem cell debacle. There is nothing all that revolutionary, but Wade gives a nice review and introduces us to some of the…
From the archives comes this comment on a question raised by microbiologist Paul Orwin--"What is science?":
The only problem with Paul Orwin is that he doesn't post as often as I would like. He makes a great observation (italics mine):
You've set yourself up a nice little system for examining the…
I've given up calling it "yet yet more misc" as I've forgotten where I've got to. So, in no particular order:
In war you will generally find that the enemy has at any time three courses of action open to him. Of those three, he will invariably choose the fourth
via Schneier. Which reminds me of We…
John has a post where he offers:
This reminds me of one of the paradoxes about Gould. Among historians (and the public) he was believed to represent mainstream science, a belief not shared by many scientists. Among scientists (and the public) he was believed to represent mainstream history of…