We had a new addition recently: check out Culture Dish. It's a biology blog! We need more of those around here.
- Log in to post comments
Advertisment
We had a new addition recently: check out Culture Dish. It's a biology blog! We need more of those around here.
Science Blogs would benefit from a dedicated history blog. As much as postmodernists deny it, history is at least sort of a science.
More biology, really? Life's OK, I guess, but a fairly minor phenomenon in the universe. I really don't think we would pay it that much attention if it didn't happen to effect us personally. It's kind of like a village newsletter.;)
(I was pretty sure I stole this observation on life from Bertrand Russell but can't find the quotation; some help)
@Matt: In a village of 23, reports of a a multiple murderer is very important to the villagers. To the outside world? Not so much.
Importance need not be absolute.
@Leigh: Agreed (else I wouldn't hang out here). I was just being snarky for the sake of it. It traditional for academics to snark gratuitously at each others fields of study.
Actually, snark aside, I am kind of worried about the noob. Her first post links to this bit of PR-paid-for equation churnalism she wrote. People that sell made-up equations for "the perfect X" are enemies of public understanding of both science and mathematics.
I'm also concerned by the fact that she contributes to a magazine by that beached whale of woo, Oprah.
Though she is pretty hot, you've got some competition PZ.
The way some folks constantly revise history, it seems like a programming language. ;-)
Matt (#5) - Ben Goldacre http://www.badscience.net has a lot to say (& none of it particularly flattering) about a) people who make up these junk 'equations' & b) the willingness of various journos to report on said equations as if they're cutting-edge science, without first engaging their critical thinking circuits.
On the other hand, a mass murder in a village of 23 is probably going to be solved fairly quickly. It's practically a multiple-choice problem.
I'm not falling for it.
Or a standard.
Andyo: Sorry, it's pure accident that the verb "to effect" would make sense; I'm just prone to homophone substitutions.
If anyone's interested, I've written about the arse-formula article, here.
I only use the "I'm not falling for it" link to cover my bases, it points out the mistake if there is one, or if not...
By the way, have you commented about the equation on her blog? I'd like to read a discussion about it. Like another poster, I also read Goldacre's post on equations, it was pretty funny.
I did comment, yeah. Actually, I'm more-or-less happy with her response. The story wasn't in the news pages where an idle reader could think it was science; it was in a bit of the magazine where vaguely whacky ideas were being discussed. Also as she mentions she did make the point of mentioning the PR firms involvement and she claims the researcher in question was open that it wasn't real research and he was trying to make a point of his own rather than just taking 30 pieces of silver.
I think maybe Brits are more sensitive to this trick than Americans; it is very common for the British press to carry stories manufactured this way as news. I'm glad you didn't all see her story and think it was obviously tongue in cheek. I was worried my irony detector was failing.