Friday, 25 November 2005

Ummm... no...

Read this and despair at how stupid people are. Actually, that's not fair. Not stupid. Rather "uncritical". That's better.

But the article does provide hope. Maybe some people will actually read it and pass it on and we'll have more people who think about what people and the TV tells them.

Oh yeah, and I was sick yesterday. Couldn't go to work. Missed a meeting. *sniff* No, really... I like meetings.


Anonymous said...

So you really like meetings? No, wonder why we had so many here. Now what about lists and forms???

Debbie :)

Anonymous said...

I could see the article! What's up with that? BTW, I like meetings too.

andie said...

I think you have to be subscribed to the site to be able to read that...

Dan said...


You are not going to believe this. I tried to post, and wound up on a business site. Maybe, I clicked on the wrong line. Maybe someone wrote from work.

Anyway, could you give us a summary.

Oh, a little late to ask but, when you are sitting at a desk in the university library, does that mean that you work there?

Anonymous said...


Nope he could of just been there to do a homework assignment or doing research, after all it is a university library. :-P


stark said...

Two quotes should sum up the article:

"Lemon juice may help beat AIDS; genetically modified crops will create superweeds; measles vaccine may be responsible for autism; and mobile phones can cut male fertility by a third. Such questionable science claims are part of a familiar litany that outrages scientists and prompts despairing comments about the sensationalist press and the outlandish world of science and medicine on the Internet."

But there is:

"an eight-page explanation of how scientists publish their research results and why that matters. The aim of the guide, launched this month and available at [], is to popularize the quality checking and rigor that begins to separate scientific work first from conjecture and then from flawed work. It suggests that the first question to be asked is "Is it published?" The guide covers the kinds of things that scientific reviewers look for – validity, significance and originality – and describes the process of scientific publishing. It also tells people how to dig a little deeper for evidence that scientific findings are published in a peer-reviewed journal."

[Both from Tracey Brown's "Making Sense of Science" in The Scientist, 19(22), Nov. 21, 2005]

In other words, there's a lot of bad information about science and medicine out there, but efforts are being made to get people clued in.

And, regarding sitting at a desk in a university library, it really depends on the desk. If it's a little dinky study carrel, or one desk in a row of a dozen, it probably means you're ust visiting. A (relatively) unique desk in the middle of traffic, with a desktop PC, a fancy chair, and covered in books, papers, and office supplies, plus a little sign that says "Reference Desk"... Well I guess maybe some people like to use the library in style. *laugh*

Dan said...

Alright. I guess I have to take responsibility for you being ill. I know you hot sick because of the practical joke I sent you. It looked pseudo intellectual, but zapped you below the belt. Alas!

Too bad Debbie couldn't open hers!

I got Jim. "Oh no Jim, of course it's not a joke. It's a real optical illusion."

Actually, that's an oxymoron, isn't it?

Dan said...

If it's Queens Library, it will probably be dinky especially if it's downstairs!

Anonymous said...

I feel so special. *sniff* stupid cold. On the other hand, I think I might have gotten that from you Dan. :-P


Anonymous said...

Oh, by the way I think you also gave it to David.


Anonymous said...

Dope, I am so slow. Must get more sleep. *snore, snore, snore*