Slashdot Mirror
The Most Obvious Scientific Discoveries of 2009
ectotherm writes "See the most obvious scientific discoveries of 2009, actually backed up by scientific studies. These include such no-brainers as 'Men are much more interested in casual sex than women.'"
I had thought that since "idle" was one of /.'s worst discoveries of 2009, that it would no longer be around in 2010.
Sadly, this seems not to be the case.
Metro, that shitty Newscorp rag that's given away on UK public transport, does a daily feature called "NO S**T SHERLOCK" on scientific discoveries where they list an obvious quote from a bit of scientific research as though positing the idea - never mind proving it, or quantifying it - was the entire purpose of the study.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
"See the most obvious scientific discoveries of 2009, actually backed up by scientific studies. These include such no-brainers as 'Men are much more interested in casual sex than women.'"
Like the notion that whatever goes up, must come down. Or that the Earth is the center of the universe. Doesn't it just suck when scientists question common knowledge? Why are they wasting their time? Sounds like we need to light our torches and get our persecutin' hats on!
Even if the experiments only prove (or lend evidence toward) what we already believe, so what! But what if the experiments prove otherwise? As a society we have nothing to lose and a lot to gain from these types of experiments. Mercury's orbit is much better explained after factoring in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, but it's still not entirely accurate to what it should be. For everything we know, there's a whole lot we don't know. And some of what we don't know is probably what we think we already know.
Let the scientists be scientists. And when they discover something new, or change the way we thought about what was previously common knowledge, you can write another article about how in hindsight it was obvious.
Yeah the long suffering homo image was a totally new thing to that movie that had never been done before.
Stupidity is its own reward.
that is assuming the majority of males engaging in casual sex are not sampling the other side of the buffet.
Or the women who do like casual sex are very, very promiscuous.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Read the comments on this article. Only one article is from a prestigious, and the article is not about the obvious thing but about the physiological underpinnings of the obvious thing. It's not the obvious thing that's interesting but the mechanism behind it that was not obvious.
You know what drives me nuts about science? The scientists. And the non-scientists. In other words, people. If it weren't for the people, better science would get done. People are motivated by selfish reasons like funding, tenure, respect of peers, fame, etc. As a grad student, basically what I do is come up with ideas so I can get published. However, in order to get published, I do have to come up with something innovative and useful (which is why I got into academics in the first place). Peer review is a good filter for a lot of junk science and just plain idiots that don't know how to do science but try to publish their junk anyhow. But then you have to deal with some reviewers who have biases too.
It depends also on how the individuals involved define casual sex. One partner might well consider it fairly serious whilst the other considers it meaningless.
I was JUST having a conversation about how the anchors on Fox News will say anything to entertain regardless of whether it is based purely on speculation, wild interpretation or even no facts at all. While I am impressed that there is a "Scientific Discovery" listed on the article with a description bemoaning the lack of homosexual portrayals of any kind in movies, I fail to see any links to any actual documented research in all cases except the high heels case. That and it was probably just a perfect excuse to rip on Disney. (The right doesn't like Disney because of their "World Days" or whatever they're called at the Disneyland resorts where they includ(ed) gays as normal people.)
/. profile to rant about it. (/pretentious) Not that any of that matters because their audience has already been brainwashed by so much interpretive data, they'll never listen to anyone speaking the plain ol' boring truth.
/. here for using a Fox News article for a story (they'll use anything to get that headline anyways =-), for they wouldn't be Fair and Balanced if they didn't.
I find it kinda funny that they are referencing journals that their demographic will probably never see. Maybe that's Fox News' strategy for convincing the gullible: "Let's get our stories from sources our audience will never see. Once we find those stories, we'll come up with some sensational interpretation of them that'll get us some exposure." Too bad they can't expose the story only to the gullible, restricting it from the more discerning. When the discerning see it, they immediately (or at least as soon as they see the FN icon) realize that Fox News has done a good job of roping them in to looking at another on one of their yarns and close the page. (This part get's a little pretentious --->) Then open then open the page again to see if any of the sources could be verified. Then close the page again, only this time frustrated enough to sign in to their
No fault to
"Since Disney just got around to featuring its first African-American princess this year, it's no shock that we may have to wait a while for a gay heroine."
Erm... when you consider the fact that many interpret Mulan as a film about a transsexual man... I don't think we're too far away from having gay Disney.
I'm a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar...
-Lucy-