Breaking news from the world of science: An Austrian professor of Celtic languages has translated a mysterious passage in old Irish from an 8th century manuscript, the Stowe Missal. It turned out to be a charm on urinary diseases meaning "Let it flow like a camel".

This is a typical story, so maybe someone can explain it to me.

Scientists say men really do prefer the lady in red

The title says it all. Red is supposed to be a sexy colour. But here's the pertinent bit: the attempted explanation of why this is so.



You frequently hear these quasi-evolutionary theories advanced to explain present day behavior, and I think they contribute to the average person's mistrust of science. Both the facts and the theories about the facts tend to get lumped together under the broad general rubrik of "Science". But the theory about why red is sexy isn't science at all, is it? It's just a wild guess.

I'm not too current on this subject, but I vaguely remember studying Jean Lamark and the idea that acquired traits are not inherited. Does science now believe that they are? If you acquire a taste for women in French Maid uniforms, does that mean that your son is going to have the same taste genetically encoded in his system?

It seems to me that the preference for Red may be "science", but the explanation is not. Or am I wrong? I tend to think that the explanation is sociological rather than evolutionary.

I think the implication is that the response to redness has become genetically imprinted in the evolutionary environment, not that it's an ancient learned response.

It does read as empty conjecture.

You can't determine much of anything from the news report.

Were the scientists who conducted the study really scientists? Recently I've been running into a body of work that is attributed to "scientists" when the work is actually being done by non-scientists.

If the researchers are scientists there are plenty of examples of cautious statements being taken out of context to create a more interesting story.

And it could all be perfectly legitimate but not widely understood science. That is this study could simply be the most recent in a long, not widely known, line of work leading to a legitimate conclusion.

Absent someone tracking down the study and checking into the background literature we won't know if this is good science or random crap. The article lacks any obvious link to help us identify the scientists.

This is a perfect example of why the creationists don't annoy me as much as they seem to annoy everyone else around here. Even if they're completely wrong, some kind of check is needed on the idiocy that gets published in the name of science:

Buuurp! Methane-emitting dinosaurs could have warmed the earth


The first paragraph is delightfully unapologetic in its foolishness:



...or even if you know for sure that they can't. The important thing is it's a good story. But as long as there are people out there ready to hold this up as the state of evolutionary thinking, that will act as some small check on it.

I don't think anyone agrees with me on this. I think the common wisdom is that the manure doesn't matter, as long as there might be a diamond in the center. But the manure does matter.

I agree with you. But this is not much different from the post about Obama, gay marriage, and your actor friend. People want to read this sort of thing, so it gets published. I wonder if the scientist in question put it on his vita to improve his tenure track chances.

Cracked, of all places, has a good article on Five Logical Fallacies that make us more wrong than we think. I liked their last paragraph.

Over at More Grumbine Science, the blogger shows how the scientific method helps counter these fallacies. In other words, science is a way to keep from fooling ourselves (Feynman).

Thanks Ken,

Always good to see stuff that is accessible to a wide range of folks.

These aren't really "fallacies" as such. The word often gets used very broadly to describe any unreliable thought process. (Believing that the earth will blow up tomorrow isn't a "fallacy", it's just not justified by known facts).

In fact, the article may even commit a few fallacies of its own. For example:



...could be regarded as a Faulty Dilemma Fallacy if you interpret it too strictly (we can spend "this money" on either this or that). I don't interpret it that strictly. I think the author is just talking in shorthand, and doesn't really mean to suggest that we shouldn't fight terrorism at all, he's only trying to order his priorities.



A Hasty Generalization fallacy if there ever was one.


It overplays its hand in some areas:


I don't recall this last bit ever happening in any conversation.



Hard wired? Are we talking Hymie the Robot? And would there be any point in pointing it out if this were true? Would it be possible for the author to have even believed it if it were true?

I've known plenty of people who were fairly honest and introspective (granted, none of them perfectly so), and so don't want to excuse those who aren't by saying "Oh, they can't help it, they're hard wired to think that way."

That's not to say that there's no value here. It's a decent article, but it goes a bit overboard on the hyperbole.

It is Cracked so yeah, hyperbole overboard. Loved your pointing out the fallacies in the article. A lesson within a lesson there. Nice. Not understanding probability though is a generalization similar to "humans have two legs" is a generalization.