Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

The Most Obvious Scientific Discoveries of 2009 23

Posted by samzenpus
from the fire-still-hot dept.
ectotherm writes "See the most obvious scientific discoveries of 2009, actually backed up by scientific studies. These include such no-brainers as 'Men are much more interested in casual sex than women.'"

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Most Obvious Scientific Discoveries of 2009

Comments Filter:
  • Argh! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by owlnation (858981)
    I had thought that since "idle" was one of /.'s worst discoveries of 2009, that it would no longer be around in 2010.

    Sadly, this seems not to be the case.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Hey wow look at you bashing Idle. You are so Slashdot-Cool now.
      You are also so Slashdot-Inept you cannot ignore Idle entries.

      • by carluva (963158)
        HA! This has to be the best comment I've seen on Slashdot, ever! You hit the nail on the head!
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by RockDoctor (15477)

          HA! This has to be the best comment I've seen on Slashdot, ever! You hit the nail on the head!

          Beats hitting the nail on the thumb.
          [drum-roll, kaaa-ching!]

          I'm sorry ; I'm sure it's not novel. But it just called out to me, and I was too weak to resist.

    • How else did you expect Fox News to get on Slashdot?

    • Yeah, this one in particular is terrible.

      There is a difference between "common knowledge" and actually testing and quantifying it to see if it's true at all, and to what degree. The problem with just relying on common knowledge is that it's wrong often enough, but people generally don't know it. For examples, just watch an episode of Mythbusters.

  • Metro, that shitty Newscorp rag that's given away on UK public transport, does a daily feature called "NO S**T SHERLOCK" on scientific discoveries where they list an obvious quote from a bit of scientific research as though positing the idea - never mind proving it, or quantifying it - was the entire purpose of the study.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    "See the most obvious scientific discoveries of 2009, actually backed up by scientific studies. These include such no-brainers as 'Men are much more interested in casual sex than women.'"

    Like the notion that whatever goes up, must come down. Or that the Earth is the center of the universe. Doesn't it just suck when scientists question common knowledge? Why are they wasting their time? Sounds like we need to light our torches and get our persecutin' hats on!

    Even if the experiments only prove (or lend evidence toward) what we already believe, so what! But what if the experiments prove otherwise? As a society we have nothing to lose and a lot to gain from these types of experiments. Mercury's

  • by Theovon (109752) on Monday January 04, 2010 @08:02PM (#30648600)

    Read the comments on this article. Only one article is from a prestigious, and the article is not about the obvious thing but about the physiological underpinnings of the obvious thing. It's not the obvious thing that's interesting but the mechanism behind it that was not obvious.

    You know what drives me nuts about science? The scientists. And the non-scientists. In other words, people. If it weren't for the people, better science would get done. People are motivated by selfish reasons like funding, tenure, respect of peers, fame, etc. As a grad student, basically what I do is come up with ideas so I can get published. However, in order to get published, I do have to come up with something innovative and useful (which is why I got into academics in the first place). Peer review is a good filter for a lot of junk science and just plain idiots that don't know how to do science but try to publish their junk anyhow. But then you have to deal with some reviewers who have biases too.

  • I was JUST having a conversation about how the anchors on Fox News will say anything to entertain regardless of whether it is based purely on speculation, wild interpretation or even no facts at all. While I am impressed that there is a "Scientific Discovery" listed on the article with a description bemoaning the lack of homosexual portrayals of any kind in movies, I fail to see any links to any actual documented research in all cases except the high heels case. That and it was probably just a perfect excus
  • "Since Disney just got around to featuring its first African-American princess this year, it's no shock that we may have to wait a while for a gay heroine."

    Erm... when you consider the fact that many interpret Mulan as a film about a transsexual man... I don't think we're too far away from having gay Disney.

We are Microsoft. Unix is irrelevant. Openness is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.

Working...