MarkVarley's profile . MarkVarley's homepage
 |
| MarkVarley |
on Sat 13 Jun 09, 1:54 AM to MarkVarley's blog.
| 13 Jun 09, 1:58 AM Vampire_bunny 3 yrs |
Yeah...there's gotta be some law against useless research! | ||
| 13 Jun 09, 2:16 AM Doghouse_Reilly UK(MK), 6 yrs  |
Problem is that so much science these days has to justify itself by appealing to the public, rather than actual scientific merit. For every legit study in astrophysics or abnormal psychology or zoology there's always got to be some bunch of spasmoid post-grads who have to do a three year study to work out the optimal size of a kitten pile to achieve maximum cuteness, or prove that women like diamonds by going to an expensive resort in Aruba and asking three of them, or maybe they'll get a million dollar grant and six months time on the Hubble telescope so they can count the moon. These studies are basically pointless. But what else can these bullshit-scientists do all day? Get real jobs? Become real scientists? Hell no. Just ignore them and maybe they'll go away. I shall not feed the trolls, Trolls are the mindkiller, Trolls are the little death that bring forum oblivion. | ||
| 13 Jun 09, 7:51 AM proccie UK(HP), 6 yrs  |
Whether we should anthropomorphise or not has a bearing on how we treat animals. If a dog can look guilty, then it can feel guilty. If it can feel guilty then it can feel a lot of other things that we feel too. That informs us about how we should treat animals. There is a lot of unnecessary research and a lot of need in the world, but then how does this site and what it is that we do improve the lot of anyone else? It doesn't it's all wasteful hedonism. Except that life would be terribly dry and not worth living without a bit of fun. Perhaps that is what this is just a bit of fun. Actually I would question the methodology, this research only confirms that people are suggestible as none of the dogs actually had done something to look guilty about. Of course dogs can look guilty, where does the expression hangdog come from if not? D
Zen S&M: The sound of one hand smacking. | ||
| 13 Jun 09, 9:54 AM Litany UK(E), 11 yrs |
one "Litany, a poncy show-off with wit, a camera, and his own teeth *swoon*" | ||
| 13 Jun 09, 10:08 AM Kinky_Vidushaka UK(SW), 3 yrs |
That is like the research that was done to find out why the buttered bread lands buttered side down. The twits with as many degrees as a thermometer could not tell us the reason is "the loaded side (buttered etc) is heavier than the unloaded side thus gravity takes control" Therefore for my 2 minutes working it out and typing it up I wish to be paid the princely sum of £15.75 thank you mister government minister. | ||
| 13 Jun 09, 12:00 PM april1961 UK(WC), 8 yrs |
Strangely, I'm always vaguely reassured about the future of humanity when I read about this kind of research. In many ways we're a ghastly species. But for me there's something of our ancestors, who gazed up at the moon and wondered what it was, living on in those who indulge in seemingly daft quests for the further understanding of our world......... Fuck. Pretentious? Moi?......... People who sign themselves with some bit of "wise" twaddle, which usually reads like something one might find in a ghastly Xmas cracker, should be shot. Edited 13 Jun 09, 12:06 PM by april1961 | ||
| 13 Jun 09, 1:11 PM flake_1 UK, 3 yrs |
It's when I read posts like this I wonder if you really understand anything about the media in the UK. Constantly sensationalising, part reporting, biased, and looking for anything which might appeal. Examples of 'useless' research recently 'why do cornflakes go soggy' 'best drink to dunk a biscuit' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/220400.stm 'and do ducks really like water' http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/20/re... In the case of the first two the research was funded by interested companies Kellogs & McVities - the cornflakes could save food by avoiding food waste as people throw them away. In the ducks like water one it was an experiment as to how best to deliver water to them because of unhygenic ponds which took up a lot of space. As ever the media pick up an a part of a story and report it as if that is the only thing to come out of the research, and neglect to say where the funding for the research has come from leaving readers to assume that it's the taxpayers. So what were the terms of reference for this study into dogs reactions under? Who has funded it? what were the total findings? If you can't answer these questions then you've fallen into the media trap of believing everything you read. And pity the society that decides to direct all it's resources into solving the problems of others. I remember the well meaning but disasterous attempt to wipe out malaria using DDT. Now we've given Africa genetically modified plants, I'm not convinced that the application of science to world hunger has a very good track record at all. | ||
| 14 Jun 09, 8:30 PM Charless UK(WC), 11 yrs |
I rather thought that was Doghouse_Reilly's point ... |
