<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.1" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The (Bad) Science of Jessica Alba</title>
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/09/18/the-bad-science-of-jessica-alba/</link>
	<description>Random samplings from a universe of ideas.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:48:22 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Babar</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/09/18/the-bad-science-of-jessica-alba/#comment-32133</link>
		<dc:creator>Babar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:42:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/09/18/the-bad-science-of-jessica-alba/#comment-32133</guid>
		<description>I once recieved an e-mail from dept secretary that someone wants expert help from a physicst for his research. I jenuinly thought that it probably is an interdisciplanry research project or the guy has encountered some physics problem while doing something else and wants some help to move ahead.

But to my surprise, the guy looking for help was an alternative medicine guy ( read fraud) and he spoke at length about his theories of everything. He wanted me to help him to back his theories with some math as this was his weak point  :-)  :), and help him publish in top journals. I tried to pursuade him about how science works, and specialy how in physics you have to calculate things instead of just vague story telling. But he said here you will come into picture. He tried to entice me with some good compensation on per hour basis but ofcourse I cared for my reputation more :).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I once recieved an e-mail from dept secretary that someone wants expert help from a physicst for his research. I jenuinly thought that it probably is an interdisciplanry research project or the guy has encountered some physics problem while doing something else and wants some help to move ahead.</p>
<p>But to my surprise, the guy looking for help was an alternative medicine guy ( read fraud) and he spoke at length about his theories of everything. He wanted me to help him to back his theories with some math as this was his weak point  <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' />  :), and help him publish in top journals. I tried to pursuade him about how science works, and specialy how in physics you have to calculate things instead of just vague story telling. But he said here you will come into picture. He tried to entice me with some good compensation on per hour basis but ofcourse I cared for my reputation more :).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacob Russell</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/09/18/the-bad-science-of-jessica-alba/#comment-32139</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacob Russell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:36:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/09/18/the-bad-science-of-jessica-alba/#comment-32139</guid>
		<description>Impotent!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Impotent!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacob Russell</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/09/18/the-bad-science-of-jessica-alba/#comment-32141</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacob Russell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:34:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/09/18/the-bad-science-of-jessica-alba/#comment-32141</guid>
		<description>"Is this really surprising behavior for a newspaper? It’s been standard journalistic operating procedure for over a century to proceed as follows: 1) Come up with an "angle", i.e. a conclusion for the story. 2) Bolster the conclusion by whatever means: truths, half-truths, genuine or misleading statistics, genuine or misleading support from authority, 3) Ignore all evidence contrary to your conclusion.

Most importantly, the conclusion always precedes the story and even the investigation that leads to the story."

There are rumored to be governments who might (Fred forbid!) consider such tactics to fool citizens into backing something as serious as an ill considered military action.

Thank Fred, that in the real world, we can be assured our Public Servants would never stoop so low.

Why it's important to expose flawed reasoning, bad science--no matter how frivolous the venue. This is funny stuff... but only for as long as we can rend them important.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Is this really surprising behavior for a newspaper? It’s been standard journalistic operating procedure for over a century to proceed as follows: 1) Come up with an &#8220;angle&#8221;, i.e. a conclusion for the story. 2) Bolster the conclusion by whatever means: truths, half-truths, genuine or misleading statistics, genuine or misleading support from authority, 3) Ignore all evidence contrary to your conclusion.</p>
<p>Most importantly, the conclusion always precedes the story and even the investigation that leads to the story.&#8221;</p>
<p>There are rumored to be governments who might (Fred forbid!) consider such tactics to fool citizens into backing something as serious as an ill considered military action.</p>
<p>Thank Fred, that in the real world, we can be assured our Public Servants would never stoop so low.</p>
<p>Why it&#8217;s important to expose flawed reasoning, bad science&#8211;no matter how frivolous the venue. This is funny stuff&#8230; but only for as long as we can rend them important.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jack</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/09/18/the-bad-science-of-jessica-alba/#comment-32142</link>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:52:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/09/18/the-bad-science-of-jessica-alba/#comment-32142</guid>
		<description>Chris said: "Ironically, given the origin of this report, the UK was one of the countries in which WHR was not a significant predictor of attractiveness."

Well, you *would* want to exclude those countries, like the UK, where the average WHR is about 3....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris said: &#8220;Ironically, given the origin of this report, the UK was one of the countries in which WHR was not a significant predictor of attractiveness.&#8221;</p>
<p>Well, you *would* want to exclude those countries, like the UK, where the average WHR is about 3&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/09/18/the-bad-science-of-jessica-alba/#comment-32145</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:21:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/09/18/the-bad-science-of-jessica-alba/#comment-32145</guid>
		<description>Surprising? No. Wrong, and deserving to be called out as such? Yes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Surprising? No. Wrong, and deserving to be called out as such? Yes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Belizean</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/09/18/the-bad-science-of-jessica-alba/#comment-32140</link>
		<dc:creator>Belizean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:17:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/09/18/the-bad-science-of-jessica-alba/#comment-32140</guid>
		<description>Is this really surprising behavior for a newspaper?  It's been standard journalistic operating procedure for over a century to proceed as follows: 1) Come up with an "angle", i.e. a conclusion for the story.  2) Bolster the conclusion by whatever means: truths, half-truths, genuine or misleading statistics, genuine or misleading support from authority, 3) Ignore all evidence contrary to your conclusion.

Most importantly, the conclusion &lt;i&gt;always&lt;/i&gt; precedes the story and even the investigation that leads to the story.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is this really surprising behavior for a newspaper?  It&#8217;s been standard journalistic operating procedure for over a century to proceed as follows: 1) Come up with an &#8220;angle&#8221;, i.e. a conclusion for the story.  2) Bolster the conclusion by whatever means: truths, half-truths, genuine or misleading statistics, genuine or misleading support from authority, 3) Ignore all evidence contrary to your conclusion.</p>
<p>Most importantly, the conclusion <i>always</i> precedes the story and even the investigation that leads to the story.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/09/18/the-bad-science-of-jessica-alba/#comment-32138</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:11:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/09/18/the-bad-science-of-jessica-alba/#comment-32138</guid>
		<description>I've been trying to talk a chemist into re-doing the infamous Brainiac episode where they dropped rubidium into a bathtub of water, but without the plastic explosives. No luck so far.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been trying to talk a chemist into re-doing the infamous Brainiac episode where they dropped rubidium into a bathtub of water, but without the plastic explosives. No luck so far.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Count Iblis</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/09/18/the-bad-science-of-jessica-alba/#comment-32135</link>
		<dc:creator>Count Iblis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:59:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/09/18/the-bad-science-of-jessica-alba/#comment-32135</guid>
		<description>No big deal. This is &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainiac:_Science_Abuse" rel="nofollow"&gt;Brainiac type research&lt;/a&gt;. And anything more serious isn't publishable in most newspapers anyway.  :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No big deal. This is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainiac:_Science_Abuse" rel="nofollow">Brainiac type research</a>. And anything more serious isn&#8217;t publishable in most newspapers anyway.  <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/09/18/the-bad-science-of-jessica-alba/#comment-32144</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:25:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/09/18/the-bad-science-of-jessica-alba/#comment-32144</guid>
		<description>I don't think one needs to prove this: I'm willing to accept that Jessica Alba has the sexiest walk as an axiom.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think one needs to prove this: I&#8217;m willing to accept that Jessica Alba has the sexiest walk as an axiom.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/09/18/the-bad-science-of-jessica-alba/#comment-32136</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:03:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/09/18/the-bad-science-of-jessica-alba/#comment-32136</guid>
		<description>As as university press officer, one of my jobs is to connect reporters with professors who can help them with their stories so I have a few thoughts about this. I'm surprised Cambridge got mixed up in this.

This approach would have set off loud alarm bells, 1) because they clearly knew the required conclusion 2) because it was pushing a product 3) there was a fee involved.
#1 tells you it's a waste of the professor's time.
#2 would be an absolute no for our campus, because they can't use the university's name to promote products.
As for #3, professors can act as consultants for outside entities -- but there has to be a contract involved and that's really getting away from a media function.

Now if a reporter had called me and said, "we want an expert on why Jessica Alba has an attractive walk," I might have checked in with a couple of people in biomechanics that I can think of who actually might be able to say something about human gait.

We do get a lot of media queries that are pretty, um, basic. But I don't have a problem with helping a local TV station do a segment on eg "What is New Car Smell?" IF a professor is willing and able to do it, because I think it's an opportunity to reach an audience with very little exposure to science and show them that science has some relevance to them.

A similar type of query is the "we want to test something -- can we use your lab." We've accommodated these on occasion, but they're generally more time and trouble to organize than they are worth, as the university does not generally have lab facilities and staff to do these kinds of things at short notice.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As as university press officer, one of my jobs is to connect reporters with professors who can help them with their stories so I have a few thoughts about this. I&#8217;m surprised Cambridge got mixed up in this.</p>
<p>This approach would have set off loud alarm bells, 1) because they clearly knew the required conclusion 2) because it was pushing a product 3) there was a fee involved.<br />
#1 tells you it&#8217;s a waste of the professor&#8217;s time.<br />
#2 would be an absolute no for our campus, because they can&#8217;t use the university&#8217;s name to promote products.<br />
As for #3, professors can act as consultants for outside entities &#8212; but there has to be a contract involved and that&#8217;s really getting away from a media function.</p>
<p>Now if a reporter had called me and said, &#8220;we want an expert on why Jessica Alba has an attractive walk,&#8221; I might have checked in with a couple of people in biomechanics that I can think of who actually might be able to say something about human gait.</p>
<p>We do get a lot of media queries that are pretty, um, basic. But I don&#8217;t have a problem with helping a local TV station do a segment on eg &#8220;What is New Car Smell?&#8221; IF a professor is willing and able to do it, because I think it&#8217;s an opportunity to reach an audience with very little exposure to science and show them that science has some relevance to them.</p>
<p>A similar type of query is the &#8220;we want to test something &#8212; can we use your lab.&#8221; We&#8217;ve accommodated these on occasion, but they&#8217;re generally more time and trouble to organize than they are worth, as the university does not generally have lab facilities and staff to do these kinds of things at short notice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
