Cyprus-Forum.com

[denizaksulu]

Who needs scientists? How on earth did they come to this conclusion?

This question is for ORACLE.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... germs.html

[Talisker]

Deniz, the Daily Mail has taken a paper within the journal 'Medical Hypotheses' and, in typical journalistic fashion, massively extrapolated with an article with the title including the words 'The unromantic truth..........'. Hmmm, a hypothesis translated to the truth. Suggest you read the original article rather than relying on a journalistic interpretation.

Ben Goodacre's book 'Bad Science' is an excellent read, and provides many examples of the means whereby the press misrepresent true scientific findings to produce sensationalist articles to sate the appetite of their readership. Truth doesn't necessarily come into the equation.........
http://www.badscience.net/

Perhaps the hypothesis (and not truth) proposed by the scientists is reasonable and worthy of investigation?

[Paphitis]

Deniz, the Daily Mail has taken a paper within the journal 'Medical Hypotheses' and, in typical journalistic fashion, massively extrapolated with an article with the title including the words 'The unromantic truth..........'. Hmmm, a hypothesis translated to the truth. Suggest you read the original article rather than relying on a journalistic interpretation.

Ben Goodacre's book 'Bad Science' is an excellent read, and provides many examples of the means whereby the press misrepresent true scientific findings to produce sensationalist articles to sate the appetite of their readership. Truth doesn't necessarily come into the equation.........
http://www.badscience.net/

Perhaps the hypothesis (and not truth) proposed by the scientists is reasonable and worthy of investigation?

I seem to recall you mentioning the same book a while ago. You mentioned it to describe Richard Dawkins' 'sensationalist' claims which are not sensationalist claims at all, because he does not portray his thesis as 100% fact.

Nevertheless, I will try to obtain a copy...

[Talisker]

Deniz, the Daily Mail has taken a paper within the journal 'Medical Hypotheses' and, in typical journalistic fashion, massively extrapolated with an article with the title including the words 'The unromantic truth..........'. Hmmm, a hypothesis translated to the truth. Suggest you read the original article rather than relying on a journalistic interpretation.

Ben Goodacre's book 'Bad Science' is an excellent read, and provides many examples of the means whereby the press misrepresent true scientific findings to produce sensationalist articles to sate the appetite of their readership. Truth doesn't necessarily come into the equation.........
http://www.badscience.net/

Perhaps the hypothesis (and not truth) proposed by the scientists is reasonable and worthy of investigation?

I seem to recall you mentioning the same book a while ago. You mentioned it to describe Richard Dawkins' 'sensationalist' claims which are not sensationalist claims at all, because he does not portray his thesis as 100% fact.

Nevertheless, I will try to obtain a copy...

Yes, I mentioned and recommended this book in the interesting Dawkins thread, but not precisely in the context to which you allude.
http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.p ... nce#496010

1000 years ago scholars may have said 'The smallest particle possible is a grain of salt - we have no evidence otherwise - and therefore there cannot be a smaller particle'. We'd laugh at that notion now, due to advances in scientific methodologies and understanding. The point I was making is that we cannot predict what further scientific advances will uncover, and this can also relate to the existence (or not) of God.

[Oracle]

1000 years ago scholars may have said 'The smallest particle possible is a grain of salt - we have no evidence otherwise - and therefore there cannot be a smaller particle'. We'd laugh at that notion now ....

On the contrary, the more scientific minded were saying, over 2,500 years ago, that the smallest particles are so small we cannot see them because they can be reduced beyond perception but can be mathematically/logically extrapolated from the (then) known world. And that is still the case is it not?

Sometimes science is even more sensationalist than mere humans and so may I recommend The Unnatural Nature of Science by Lewis Wolpert, to you!

[Oracle]

Who needs scientists? How on earth did they come to this conclusion?

This question is for ORACLE.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... germs.html

Typical Any excuse to snog us for six months on the pretext it will be best for the baby!

[denizaksulu]

Deniz, the Daily Mail has taken a paper within the journal 'Medical Hypotheses' and, in typical journalistic fashion, massively extrapolated with an article with the title including the words 'The unromantic truth..........'. Hmmm, a hypothesis translated to the truth. Suggest you read the original article rather than relying on a journalistic interpretation.

Ben Goodacre's book 'Bad Science' is an excellent read, and provides many examples of the means whereby the press misrepresent true scientific findings to produce sensationalist articles to sate the appetite of their readership. Truth doesn't necessarily come into the equation.........
http://www.badscience.net/

Perhaps the hypothesis (and not truth) proposed by the scientists is reasonable and worthy of investigation?

I usually take press reports with a pinch of salt. I will read the original article you mentioned. Still, what a waste of resources. I just found it odd. I was going to post it to another thread on 'kissing' but I thought it was locked.

Cheers.

[denizaksulu]

Who needs scientists? How on earth did they come to this conclusion?

This question is for ORACLE.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... germs.html

Typical Any excuse to snog us for six months on the pretext it will be best for the baby!

...but one would assume that the snogged one would enjoy it too. Two happy people make one happy baby.

[Oracle]

Who needs scientists? How on earth did they come to this conclusion?

This question is for ORACLE.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... germs.html

Typical Any excuse to snog us for six months on the pretext it will be best for the baby!

...but one would assume that the snogged one would enjoy it too. Two happy people make one happy baby.

Yup, so happy and busy fighting off Cytomegalovirus that, helplessly, those other invaders find their way into your body and take over so that life is never the same again ....

[denizaksulu]

Who needs scientists? How on earth did they come to this conclusion?

This question is for ORACLE.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... germs.html

Typical Any excuse to snog us for six months on the pretext it will be best for the baby!

...but one would assume that the snogged one would enjoy it too. Two happy people make one happy baby.

Yup, so happy and busy fighting off Cytomegalovirus that, helplessly, those other invaders find their way into your body and take over so that life is never the same again ....

That is why am pleased you are back.


These pesky little buggers get everywhere, whether they kiss or not - they will fing a way to 'propagate'.