Friday, August 10, 2007

Salsa anticorrelation

Yesterday Radek introduced me to a new concept: anticorrelated abilities. Think of the ability to be really good in languages or really good in math. Radeks hypothesis is that the co-occurence of these two abilities is smaller than expected by chance if the abilities were independent. To illustrate his point he told me that he has observed multiple examples of anticorrelation between being a good salsa dancer and the ability to ride a bike well...
This is of course just a hypothesis, and I do not have any examples myself to strengthen or disprove it, but I must say that I am delighted to be introduced to such a interestingly new point of view on salsa.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Why Danes are smug - a scientific study

The World Map of Happiness published from the University of Leicester, showed that the Danish population is unrivalled the most satisfied in Europe. Why is this? Because blondes have more fun? Because of the infamous "Danish Cuisine"? Or just because Danes love football?

Have fun reading the full article in the British Medical Journal: Why Danes are smug: comparative study of life satisfaction in the European Union

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Bad arguments

Today I got particularly annoyed when I once again saw the sponsored link on my gmail to "DNA analysis concludes [DNA proof that Man did not evolve from monkeys. PhD in microbiology]". Now I won't link to it directly through that sentence, but rather through a sentence like "An example of bad argumentation" or "Logical fallacies" or even "Creationist propaganda".
The above-mentioned article (linked three times) is an example of how you can quote perfectly sound arguments and make their conclusions sound like they support your own point of view. If you are educated in genetics and/or molecular biology, you will know much more about the reasoning behind the shown quotes, and you can pin-point exactly where these authors make wrong conclusions. Sometimes it is due to lack of knowledge of the subject, e.g. when they say that a differing chromosome number between organisms makes evolutionary relationship unlikely. In other circumstances they plainly ignore the scientific method, and use a sub-conclusion out of context, e.g. when Elaine Morgan refers to an event that happened to the human lineage and not to the ancestors of chimps and gorillas, they conclude from her quote: "That “something” actually is “Someone”—the Creator."

If they pay per click they get via google-links, I hope they will get a lot of clicks. On the other hand, I am afraid that people with no scientific background might accept their conclusions as true.

Read more about logical fallacies in The Fallacy Files.

Labels: , , , , ,