Small correction needed - Ascaris lumbricoides is a roundworm, not tapeworm (which would be a Taeniarhynchus species). Hopefully that wasn't the author's mistake.
Ironically, the accompanying istock image in the article above might be partially to blame. At least, an example of the deeper problem.
The iconic stereotype of scientists in western society includes a removed, aloof character that is disconnected from you're average person. This is encouraged when a general representative of 'scientist' portrayed (as above). While there are no doubt many reasons contributing to the absence of scientists in politics, I think the expectation of scientists to be disconnected observers who are out of touch with Joe Average plays a role.
We nearly had a similar problem in the UK, flying back on Virgin Atlantic. Myself, my partner and our two year old were to be split up for a flight to Hong Kong. Fortunately the staff were superb and they made changes to see us put together.
Yet my partner has had woeful experience traveling with with our son on United. No help, no decent customer service...borderline belligerence. Simple solution - we won't fly with them ever again.
On Gaughlin's Mars Effect: While it initially seems quite amazing, the conclusions are on shaky ground. First of all, post-hoc defining of what constitutes an exception athlete leaves plenty of room for bias. Indeed, when it was repeated using his own protocol by French researchers (ref: Claude Benski's work, which had a substantial sample size of about 1000 individuals), no such effect could be found.
It's often cited as evidence for astrology; if that's as strong as it gets, we can safely say that astrology in any way, shape or form is about as good as guessing when it comes to evaluating personalities.
Strange how once you blind an astrologer to what sign a person is, the system is incapable of producing consistent results. Seems plain old psychology is better at explaining this than any version of astrology.
Yeah, sorry to disappoint you folks - it's a fox. The tail is way too thick (and a little long) for a thylacine. Tasmania was thought to have been spared the introduction of foxes until only a few years ago, when there was the first sighting near Davenport. They're not common, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's not the first thing a person would think of when they see something small and dog-like in the near distance. But if given a choice between 'Tassie tiger' and 'fox' in this instant, there's no doubt which it is.
"All animals have varying numbers of blood types. Cows have a whopping 800 types of blood. Humans have four blood types, A, B, AB, and O and these can be further identified by their RH positive or negative status. Over 70% of Americans are either type O+ or A+."
Actually humans have a larger number of antigen markers on our red cells, most of which are matched prior to donated blood being used. In addition to sugar-based antigens such as A, B and protein based Rh factor, we can express a range of antigens with names such as Duffy, Kidd and Kell.
If we were to match the major blood groups in cattle, they have 11 categories, each of which has numerous polymorphisms which makes it difficult to match across breeds.
I agree with SenorMysterioso - why is he a 'self described anti-feminist'? Sounds pretty feministic to me, to argue against the biasing of actions based solely on gender. Men's sporting and business clubs are going the way of the dinosaur because they're exclusive based on gender. Yet women's fitness clubs are on the rise. And here I always thought it was about gender equality.
ETA: Not saying the methane bubble explanations are paranormal. However, even in a rush to provide 'logical' explanations, many make the same mistake of presuming that the mystery has been established as such. I'd suggest that before people rush to explain a phenomenon, they do the homework to establish whether there really is something to be explained in the first place.
@BenEshbach :) No, but Larry's work isn't the only research I've seen on the topic. I'm also quite used to advocates on paranormal explanations being rather sloppy researchers who readily assume the mystery is really mysterious and then proceed to try to cobble together ad-hoc explanations. Those to tend to go back to the beginning quickly find there isn't much of a legend to go on.
There is a far simpler explanation that fits the evidence much, much better - there is nothing unusual about the Bermuda Triangle. In fact, if anything, there is a slight (statistically non-significant) favour towards it being safer than other oceanic areas.
The alleged reports are all poor journalism and rumour. Many flights claimed to have been lost were never missing or were found and never reported on. Looking through the statistics, per voyage (given how busy the area is) there are fewer aircraft and water vessel incidents in that area than outside of it.
The phenomenon of why arm-chair scientists try to solve a myth when they don't bother doing the ground research on the initial assumption is far more of a mystery than the legend itself. :P
Ah, the 'I don't understand it so it must be bad for me' heuristic. :P
If it's a number or a chemical name, people automatically presume it's somehow bad for you. By the same token, if it's a herb or sounds 'natural', it must be good for you. So E260 is bad, while vinegar is good. Ethyl butanoate, ethyl hexanoate and 2,5-dimethyl-4-hydroxy-3(2H)-furanone are bad, but strawberries are good. Never thinking they are for all purposes the same things (those chemicals being responsible for the smell of strawberries).
We should always be vigilant, of course, of the additives such as colourings and preservatives used in food. But using 'if it's a chemical name or a number, it's probably bad' as a guide is simply being too lazy to learn a bit of science.
I hear the statistic a lot, but I must admit, I'm curious to know where it comes from precisely.
In my experience (I don't work in marketing, but do work with science magazines) magazine sales aren't doing as badly as people presume. Shares in the overall market have divided, from what I've been told, but this is far from 'print is dead'.
What successful magazines are realising is that the web is a tool that augments what they do, not competes with it.
Every new medium that has come into being has been heralded as the 'death' of something. The grammophome heralded the death of local choirs; cinema the death of live theatre; television the death of cinema etc. And while they all evolved from the impact of competing tech, none of it disappeared.
Print will be around for a while yet, even if will necessarily involve a digital component.
While Wrangham's argument (not a new one, but popularised by him, which isn't a bad thing) isn't without merit, to stretch it to say it is a cause of human intelligence is something of a stretch. There's no reason to suspect that cooked food did not contribute to some neurological development, however the very fact fire relies on cultural learning to pass down shows significant social intelligence was well in place by the time humans began to experiment with it. In the least, cooking food was hardly detrimental to early human energy needs, but I think it's asking a bit much from the theory to thank a warm meal of mammoth steaks for our big brains.
The iconic stereotype of scientists in western society includes a removed, aloof character that is disconnected from you're average person. This is encouraged when a general representative of 'scientist' portrayed (as above). While there are no doubt many reasons contributing to the absence of scientists in politics, I think the expectation of scientists to be disconnected observers who are out of touch with Joe Average plays a role.
We nearly had a similar problem in the UK, flying back on Virgin Atlantic. Myself, my partner and our two year old were to be split up for a flight to Hong Kong. Fortunately the staff were superb and they made changes to see us put together.
Yet my partner has had woeful experience traveling with with our son on United. No help, no decent customer service...borderline belligerence. Simple solution - we won't fly with them ever again.
It's often cited as evidence for astrology; if that's as strong as it gets, we can safely say that astrology in any way, shape or form is about as good as guessing when it comes to evaluating personalities.
Actually humans have a larger number of antigen markers on our red cells, most of which are matched prior to donated blood being used. In addition to sugar-based antigens such as A, B and protein based Rh factor, we can express a range of antigens with names such as Duffy, Kidd and Kell.
If we were to match the major blood groups in cattle, they have 11 categories, each of which has numerous polymorphisms which makes it difficult to match across breeds.
:) No, but Larry's work isn't the only research I've seen on the topic. I'm also quite used to advocates on paranormal explanations being rather sloppy researchers who readily assume the mystery is really mysterious and then proceed to try to cobble together ad-hoc explanations. Those to tend to go back to the beginning quickly find there isn't much of a legend to go on.
The alleged reports are all poor journalism and rumour. Many flights claimed to have been lost were never missing or were found and never reported on. Looking through the statistics, per voyage (given how busy the area is) there are fewer aircraft and water vessel incidents in that area than outside of it.
The phenomenon of why arm-chair scientists try to solve a myth when they don't bother doing the ground research on the initial assumption is far more of a mystery than the legend itself. :P
If it's a number or a chemical name, people automatically presume it's somehow bad for you. By the same token, if it's a herb or sounds 'natural', it must be good for you. So E260 is bad, while vinegar is good. Ethyl butanoate, ethyl hexanoate and 2,5-dimethyl-4-hydroxy-3(2H)-furanone are bad, but strawberries are good. Never thinking they are for all purposes the same things (those chemicals being responsible for the smell of strawberries).
We should always be vigilant, of course, of the additives such as colourings and preservatives used in food. But using 'if it's a chemical name or a number, it's probably bad' as a guide is simply being too lazy to learn a bit of science.
In my experience (I don't work in marketing, but do work with science magazines) magazine sales aren't doing as badly as people presume. Shares in the overall market have divided, from what I've been told, but this is far from 'print is dead'.
What successful magazines are realising is that the web is a tool that augments what they do, not competes with it.
Every new medium that has come into being has been heralded as the 'death' of something. The grammophome heralded the death of local choirs; cinema the death of live theatre; television the death of cinema etc. And while they all evolved from the impact of competing tech, none of it disappeared.
Print will be around for a while yet, even if will necessarily involve a digital component.