No, this isn’t another post about the Bush administration. Rather I’m pointing you to an exquisite rant by Dinos Chapman about how artists love to lie about their sex lives.
The rant is of the type that one can only find in a British newspaper (meaning that it is bile filled and has some inspired profanity) and was in part provoked by an article titled “Creative types have more sex”. Here’s a taster
What a pile of crap. Those responsible should be shot. Better still, they should be forced to have several thousand sexual partners. Preferably schizoid artists, bad, ugly, psychotic ones. Then shot.
Enjoy!
December 1st, 2005 at 12:17 am
Here’s the creative types have more sex article (or one version thereof, with typically British illustration).
My conclusion: it’s not hard to think of research projects that would get written up in the popular press, if you really put your mind to it.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:24 am
Mark:- Have you noticed that time and again these “whacky research results” articles that make the press (over here too) are always (amost) from “research” carried out in Britain? It’s always crap about whether the quack of a duck echoes or not, or what order to put milk in your tea, etc….. and its always from Britain…..And the British press spend a ridiculous amount of time on it too. I’ll bet a fair amount of money that there was a long interview on BBC Radio 4 about it, for example. Not nearly as much attention is given to real scientific results (whatever that means)…. Sigh.
-cvj
December 1st, 2005 at 11:20 am
What about the investigation as to whether (and if so why) toast always falls off the table butter side down?
(Conclusion – the old adage is true. It all boils down to the universal physical constants that effectively determine heights of humans and therefore heights of tables, etc.)
December 1st, 2005 at 12:23 pm
citrine…. they did that one too! See what I mean? I distinctly remember it all over the press at the time. Really helps keep British science looking serious.
-cvj
December 1st, 2005 at 12:27 pm
Dear Clifford,
You say “Have you noticed that time and again these “whacky research results” articles that make the press (over here too) are always (almost) from “research” carried out in Britain?”
Britain, my country, is the craziest place in the world. It has not been invaded successfully since 1066, and has both monarchy (and this a “Royal Society” at the head of science), and parliament. The increasing number of contradictions in the country, for example the overwhelming public distain for the Iraq war being over-ruled by the prime minister, make it pretty unique. In America you went to war due to 9/11, but here it was a prime ministerial decision against public opinion polls.
Science here is dominated by contradictions. Hawking states dishonestly in a book:
‘I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper. All I’m concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements.’ — Dr Stephen Hawking in S. Hawking and R. Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1996, p. 121.
Now this means, does it not, that Hawking isn’t interested in his own work which is untestable because Hawking radiation is swamped by the natural high background gamma spectrum in space? Hawking doesn’t go on about Hawking radiation in “A brief history of time”?!
“Artistic Liars” may apply to some British scientists.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:39 pm
Science: – Thanks. Just so we’re clear……I have have the highest faith in the overall quality of research and science in Britain -where by the way I also am from, and have lived and worked and still hold a position as an academic- what I am talking about is what “whacky stuff” the press insists on covering regularly, instead of focusing on the bulk of what is going on in science.
Cheers,
-cvj
April 6th, 2007 at 10:41 am
do meridia phentermine wo
news