Bad science writing
There is so much bad science writing out there, it is almost unbelievable. Bad protocols, bad commentary, bad interpretations, bad understanding. We need people who can think. We need them to have a look at these issues:
bad methods
non sequitors
naive reductionism
subjective language
circular reasoning
conflating reason with cause
serious neglect of obvious underdetermination
Science (communication) goes porn culture
Submitted by Lennart Kiil on Wed, 18/10/2006 - 14:40.Sky news has an article about the future of Humankind. It is really a rather silly article, but pretty entertaining.
It seems to me that Evolutionary Psychologists are pretty desperate for attention. Here are some predictions:
:: Men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises.
:: Women will develop lighter skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, even features and smooth hairless skin.
Unthinking academics and terrorism
Submitted by Lennart Kiil on Sat, 15/07/2006 - 14:00.Blaming men and masculinity for everything evil in the world has become such a commonplace prejudice that it has infiltrated academia.
Unthinking academics (of which there are many) are not able to escape this Zeitgeist and thus they cannot produce objective or nearly objective research nor conclusions.
All of the following quotations are from a Sunday Herald article called: Criminologists say London bombers were motivated more by masculinity than Islam.
Foreskin causes AIDS
Submitted by Lennart Kiil on Tue, 11/07/2006 - 18:30.According to many news sources today, new investigations conclude (whenever you see something along the lines of - new investigations conclude xxxxx, it is time to turn on your critical filter) that: Circumcision may stop millions of HIV deaths in Reuters Science and Circumcision 'could cut HIV risk' in BBC NEWS
