May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829 3031

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Thursday, July 17th, 2008 02:12 pm
...on crickets.

*rolls eyes at science 'news'*

I like the findings anyway :D
Tags:
Thursday, July 17th, 2008 06:27 am (UTC)
*facepalm* and here I was thinking the ABC was much better than the commercial news stations...
Thursday, July 17th, 2008 06:51 am (UTC)
Heh. Yeah, reading it I thought "Ooh, [livejournal.com profile] vegetus won't like this" :D Still, at least now if you encounter someone going "Ha! Science says women need lots of meat! The ABC says so!" you'll know to go "Pfft. I am not a cricket" :)
Thursday, July 17th, 2008 06:58 am (UTC)
I liked some of the comments to the article. Whilst I personally don't see why you'd need to do this research on crickets (I'm sure someone who works with crickets could explain it though) the way the findings are written is just sloppy and sensationalistic (is that even a word?).

In addition to saying I'm not a cricket I can also say that I do not want to be particularly fertile right now.
Sunday, July 20th, 2008 02:32 pm (UTC)
In addition to saying I'm not a cricket I can also say that I do not want to be particularly fertile right now.

Heh, yes that's true, what if you don't want to increase your output of eggs? :)
Thursday, July 17th, 2008 06:36 am (UTC)
See, I read that as 'Men need cars, women need meat'... and thought it was an odd combination:-)
Monday, July 21st, 2008 11:04 am (UTC)
You could probably find just as much if not more "scientific" evidence for that hypothesis :)
Thursday, July 17th, 2008 06:36 am (UTC)
Oh, that's beautiful. I bow to you.
Monday, July 21st, 2008 11:05 am (UTC)
Oh, I think a lot of the credit has to go the the ABC :)
Thursday, July 17th, 2008 06:51 am (UTC)
Hmmm. Cricket >> Human

One small step for science, one giant boing for cricketkind.
Monday, July 21st, 2008 11:05 am (UTC)
:)
Thursday, July 17th, 2008 08:54 am (UTC)
yeah, I read the title then noticed the content. Whoever edited that news item deserves to be shot.
Monday, July 21st, 2008 11:32 am (UTC)
Heh, a death penalty for bad science would probably raise standards :)
Thursday, July 17th, 2008 10:34 am (UTC)
I was thinking about these studies and I want to do one that proves something really dumb, like people with multiple piercings are more likely to be bitten by mosquitoes, or women who grew up with cats are more likely to have daughters and those with dogs, sons.

Just find some correlation and make it seem plausible that they're related. With scientific backing and funding.
Monday, July 21st, 2008 11:37 am (UTC)
My favourite is that underweight babies are much more likely to live if their mother smokes.

Since if your baby is underweight, then chances are either you smoke (and your baby is underweight but otherwise pretty healthy) or there's something seriously wrong with your kid...