Ig Nobels Awarded

prostoalex writes "The definitive study on bellybutton lint, a dog-to-person translation device and an inquiry into what arouses ostriches were recognized at 2002 Ig Nobel awards. The telecast of the event in RealMedia format is available from Harvard University server, there's also an Associated Press story. Ig Nobel awards typically recognize the most dubious contributions to the world of science and research."

Comments

Not 'Dubious' at all.

[pipetoawk]

I think the headline to the AP article doesn't do justice to the spirit of the awards. It seems the awards celebrate seemingly useless discoveries. Of course, no one can say definitively that any of these discoveries won't prove useful in the future. In fact, history is littered with useless discoveries that later prove very useful (Gregor Mendel and his theories of heredity come to mind). The scientists at these awards know that, and they also know that the general public doesn't know it. It's a chance for them to come together and commiserate.

Contrast this to truly dubious science, like that practiced by that Schon guy at Bell Labs who said he could make any material a superconductor, and fudged all his data to prove it. Now that was dubious science.

Re:Not 'Dubious' at all.

[Alomex]

That is my one beef with the Ig prices. IMHO they should make a much stronger distinction between trully bogus science (Schon, Enron) and valid, --although fringe science-- whose techniques or goals are, let's say, non-standard.

They are two different beasts and we do not gain by confusing them. Having said that, I enjoy the fun of the Igs as much as the next guy, and it makes for a good laugh.

Re:Not 'Dubious' at all.

[pyrrho]

I was thinking the same thing but actually, the theme is "science that makes you laugh" and that's a lot more fun than dealing with a bunch of frauds. For example, the guy that won by studying coconuts... well... that's not that funny when you live around coconuts... more people die from coconut falls than shark bites in Hawaii, for example! But they know this. It's strikes their funny bone because they live in a place where coconut is a flavour, and the coconut guy understands that and doesn't feel all that ridiculed. Most of the research is really quite valid in that way. That's what keeps the humor in good fun.

Awards are stupid

[tmark]

I have never been able to tolerate the self-important, judgemental nature of these awards. Who are they to determine what is and is not of merit ? Basic science, especially, is FULL of research which seems largely irrelevant to many and is easy to ridicule when described out of context.

The annals of basic science are full of findings that seemed irrelevant at one point, only until they were interpreted later from another framework or in light of other findings.

Basic science is all about asking questions for the sake of asking questions, because it would be arrogant for ANYONE to presuppose they know what is and is not going to be 'of scientific merit'. The people who run these awards, and the ones who snicker at the recipients, are arrogant in the extreme.

Re:[Slightly OT] Intelligent Dogs

[kin_korn_karn]

I have an uncle that had a dog that could "spell". They'd say, "Bo, B-O-N-E!" and he would run to the cabinet where they kept the dog biscuits. I then said, "Bo, B-O-W-L!" and he went to the same cabinet. Then to make sure it wasn't a "B" phonetic thing, I said, "Bo, S-P-O-O-N" and he went to the same cabinet.

Dogs just aren't that smart.

That's not the point! Re:Not 'Dubious' at all.

[WolfWithoutAClause]

I think you've missed the point a bit.

The point of the ignoble awards is to be FUN!

A mixture of laughing at the genuine hoaxes as well as marvelling at the crazy scientific experiments people manage to get funding for is going to be a much better laugh than what you are proposing.

Personally I like the award for making frogs levitate, dunking chocolate biscuits and for the use of imaginary numbers in accountancy by Enron ;-)