Remember this study from last month? Well, apparently NYTimes picked up on it and now all the bloggers are picking it apart - see what Dave Bacon, Jake Young and Mark Hoofnagle have to say. I think this study, started as a joke, is about to be revisited seriously with a huge data-set and various strict controls. As long as someone manages to get NIH to pay for all the beer.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
OK, so a bunch of us sciencebloggers went to New York City this weekend. This is something that we were trying to do for almost a year now. Sure, many of us Sciblings have met one-on-one on occasion, but this was an opportunity to get many of us together all in the same place at the same time, to…
I guess nobody reads me, and everyone reads PZ, but I am astonished how many people, after my eight lengthy posts on the topic, dozens of posts by others who 'get it' and literally hundreds of comments by people who 'get it', still equate framing with spin.
For instance, in his latest post…
The NYTimes has an article today about the "science" of online match-making. I put that in quotes because there really isn't any clear evidence about whether it works either way.
You have no doubt seen the ads on TV for the two most popular match-making sites: eHarmony and Chemistry.com. These…
The arXiv is a game changer for how large portions of physics (and increasingly other fields) are done. Paul Ginsparg won a MacArthur award for his vision and stewardship of the arXiv (something other institutions might want to note when they decide that someone trying to change how science is…