Slashdot Mirror
Fake Mouse On Twitter Mocks Overgeneralized Scientific Research (twitter.com)
DevNull127 writes: Research scientist James Heathers is a postdoctoral research associate working on bio-signals and meta-science research at Northeastern University, with a PhD from the University of Sydney. He's also pretending to be a mouse on Twitter. And every tweet consists of the exact same two words...
Heathers retweets articles about scientific studies — usually articles with glossy photos and enticing headlines like "Exercise during pregnancy protects children from obesity, study finds." His tweets add the two crucial missing words. "In mice."
In this case a doctoral student at Washington State University measured a specific protein's level in the offspring of mice that performed 60 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise every morning during pregnancy — and in regular mice. On the basis of that he recommended "that women — whether or not they are obese or have diabetes — exercise regularly during pregnancy because it benefits their children's metabolic health."
The name of the Twitter feed: JustSaysInMice.
Other mouse-based studies turning up on the Twitter feed:
Heathers retweets articles about scientific studies — usually articles with glossy photos and enticing headlines like "Exercise during pregnancy protects children from obesity, study finds." His tweets add the two crucial missing words. "In mice."
In this case a doctoral student at Washington State University measured a specific protein's level in the offspring of mice that performed 60 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise every morning during pregnancy — and in regular mice. On the basis of that he recommended "that women — whether or not they are obese or have diabetes — exercise regularly during pregnancy because it benefits their children's metabolic health."
The name of the Twitter feed: JustSaysInMice.
Other mouse-based studies turning up on the Twitter feed:
- How Fatty Diets Stop the Brain From Saying 'No' To Food
- Reused Cooking Oil Ups Risk of Metastases In Breast Cancer Patients
- Keto Diet Not Effective, Causes Blood Sugar Problems In Women
- Growth Hormone Acts To Foil Weight Loss: Study
When you read those headlines, just remember to add those two words...
"In mice."
And remember, the belief in God is not backed by any evidence
I assume you mean evidence which, by today's standards, would be considered scientific. I've seen plenty of 21st-century evidence of God's existence that I consider reliable, but because it is not scientific, it is unreasonable for me to expect those who demand only scientific evidence to accept it, so I don't bother trying.
the historical record shows that its a creation of man. Superstitious nonsense.
I know enough about history to know that historical records, particularly those more than a few hundred years ago, are spotty. I also know that they can be un-reliable: Those who win military or philosophical or cultural wars are the ones that write the history books. If you had said "the historical record strongly sugguests..." instead of "shows..." or "historical evidence which is generally considered to be reliable enough on this matter shows..." and you said "the God desribed in [insert particular holy book here]" instead of just "God," then I would at least be willing to listen to evidence to support your claim (evidence you did not provide, by the way). When you say it "[definitively] shows..." then that's basically a faith statement, which is kind of ironic given your claim that God is made-up by man.
And what kills me is that 40% of scientists believe in God. Completely irrational. So much for the theory that science education makes one more rational or logical.
I think the number is a lot higher than that, expecially among the "hard" sciences. I'm just speculating here, but perhaps like me they have seen reliable non-scientific evidence which has led to their personal belief (aka "world view") but, like me, they know the evidence is not scientific.
---
By the way, there are scientists who are trying to use scientific principles to prove this-or-that religion. Some are total shams. Some are well-meaning scientists who are blinded by their faith and don't see that they are not really applying scientific methodology. Others are actually using scientific methodologies. As far as I know, the latter group is having some success in proving certain historical events written about in this-or-that holy book are either likely or at least plausible, but AFAIK none has ever come close to scientificly proving the existence of God.
Likewise, I have never seen - and do not ever expect to see - any scientific proof that there is not an intelligent, omnicient, onmipresent, omnipotent entity that created the universe and still exists today.
In short, to make a scientific claim that such an entity ("God" - not just the specific God of any specific holy book) does not exist is not a scientific claim at all - it is a statement of faith masquerading as science.
--
Personally, I do believe in the God of Genesis. I also beleive that this same God interacts with people today. But I do not expect anyone reading this to believe in this God based on anything I say here on Slashdot. The best I can hope for is that, if they know me personally, they will come to know that I am sincere in my beliefs, and that these beliefs affect who I am and the decisions I make, for the better for myself and for those around me.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
You don't need to be a researcher in order to read the effing paper beyond headline before you write a news article about it. And you don't have to be a researcher in order to not make shit up that the original paper doesn't actually include.