FA+
Shop
SCIENCE!
10 years ago
General
Real science published in a real science journal and presented on a science news site as actual science:
http://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=5780
Now, I love me some science. I understand that recording methodology is extremely important for repeatability (hell, I'm a huge fan of doing it myself!) I know that 81% of real science is plain and boring methodology, repeating tests, and so forth and breakthroughs are like ~0.01% of science. I also understand the pressures that journalists and news publishers are under to make everything sounds important and dramatic.
But, I couldn't help but get a kick out of how phys.org presented something that is so normal to me like it's a breakthrough!
Still, good on Dr. Giuseppe Montesanto for helping to bring his field into the modern age!
http://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=5780
Now, I love me some science. I understand that recording methodology is extremely important for repeatability (hell, I'm a huge fan of doing it myself!) I know that 81% of real science is plain and boring methodology, repeating tests, and so forth and breakthroughs are like ~0.01% of science. I also understand the pressures that journalists and news publishers are under to make everything sounds important and dramatic.
But, I couldn't help but get a kick out of how phys.org presented something that is so normal to me like it's a breakthrough!
Still, good on Dr. Giuseppe Montesanto for helping to bring his field into the modern age!
Correlation does not mean causality, but that one was tempting.
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-tracks.....ucts-iraq.html
Phys.org has tons or really good quality stuff (and a lot of opinion stuff coming from something called "The Conversation" lately) but every once in a while they drop some weird ones. Like this one, not exactly a study being published, but (at the end) it makes accountants sound like a powerful, hidden-in-plain-sight cabal:
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-accoun.....es-stable.html