Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,334

    Worst New Scientist article ever!

    Dogs vs cats: The great pet showdown

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...html?full=true

    I give this tripe the laziness it deserves by recycling my response from another forum:

    Quote Originally Posted by another poster there
    Apparently I just heard Dogs are better pets than Cats. But only by a whisker.
    Based on some misconceived study in which the authors determined eleven qualities considered desirable in a pet, weighted them equally, and found (in reference to relevant published studies) that dogs scored higher on six and cats on five.

    Of course, every owner's weighting of the various qualities will vary depending on their requirements in a pet and hence even taking the research into account, they will get different answers.

    Furthermore, one of the categories included (length of time of domestication) is irrelevant to whether something makes a good pet now, especially as the longer ago something was domesticated the more likely it was domesticated for purposes that differ from those considered important today. So that one should be removed making it a 5-5 tie.

    Unless the secondary reporting of all this is a gross misrepresentation then New Scientist has demeaned itself considerably by getting involved in this tripe and the article is probably not fit for pet food.

    That said, I have not yet read the original.

    [EDIT: I have now: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ?full=true

    It is even worse than I expected. It should be sent to New Idea.]
    NB: My bias is obvious - but it does not invalidate my criticism.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  2. #2
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Sounds like Ig Nobel prize worthy research. :rollseyes:
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  3. #3
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,334
    Lest some of the more habitual NS-bashers here get carried away, I should point out that while the articles cited in the NS article are often peer-reviewed research published in serious scientific journals, the article itself is no such thing - it is just a piece of trashy, silly, attention-generating pop-science gone horribly wrong. It is not even "research" as such, so much as an example of how not to present a literature review.

    As such, the article itself should not be considered to represent "science" or used as a stick to beat "science" with. Nor should my criticisms of the article reflect on any of the sources it cites.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  4. #4
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Yes it is a bit of fun not even a literature review as such. Just some science writer at NS with too much time on his hands and an editor with a directive to boost interest in the online forum I suspect. However, a magazine which wishes to be taken even half seriously should avoid the 'Today Tonight' formula.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2177
    Last Post: 30-03-2019, 06:54 PM
  2. Changes in the 1st July 2009 Laws of Chess - what do they mean
    By Bill Gletsos in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 127
    Last Post: 15-06-2009, 09:35 PM
  3. 2005 FIDE Laws of Chess on FIDE website finally correct
    By Bill Gletsos in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-07-2007, 05:57 PM
  4. Is it a legal move?
    By Phil Bourke in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 24-05-2006, 09:56 AM
  5. New Laws of Chess as of 1st July 2005
    By Bill Gletsos in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 02-11-2005, 09:45 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •