tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post9117860269893368537..comments2024-03-29T07:14:55.029+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: A Load of Old DickPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-7437181236197861482016-12-17T11:11:23.632+00:002016-12-17T11:11:23.632+00:00Thanks, Phil. I have no argument with your concern...Thanks, Phil. I have no argument with your concern about the misappropriation of good science by those who wish to make a political point.<br /><br />In fact, my worry about your piece is the appearance that you have done precisely that yourself, as the scientists who wrote the paper that you are critiquing seem to have made hardly any of the claims that you represent them as making.<br /><br />Certainly, they do suggest that the absence of a baculum in humans may have arisen some 1.9m years ago, and that this may have coincided with a switch to monogamous mating. But that's about it. <br /><br />However, you claim that, "our scientist friends have come up with an explanation that neglects [human penis length]". In fact, the paper does touch on this (ooer missus), as well as other competing and complicating features in other mammals (such as testes size). But this is done precisely in order to point out the limitations of their study and that there are many other factors that need to be considered. <br /><br />You go on to claim that, "our authors suggest we moved to monogamous behaviour to combat the transmission of STIs". But STIs are nowhere mentioned in either the paper or the Guardian report.<br /><br />Thirdly, you attack the suggestion that this move coincided with the switch to settled agriculture - but again, neither the paper nor the report mentions the switch to agriculture.<br /><br />Indeed, the paper is a model of caution in the way it avoids speculation beyond its basic research question, so I'd be genuinely interested in reading anything which you might not have referenced where the authors of this paper make these wider claims. <br /><br />Otherwise, I'm left with the uncomfortable conclusion that you've manipulated and misrepresented a piece of good science to make a polemical point.<br /><br /> MikeBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-50230820013969973292016-12-17T09:06:01.928+00:002016-12-17T09:06:01.928+00:00That's alright, Mike.
What my beef is the pas...That's alright, Mike.<br /><br />What my beef is the passage from good science to bad science. All too often practitioners of the hard stuff venture into speculating about matters social without employing the kinds of rigour they bring to bear in their own subject areas. They are, of course, free to do so but what I object to is these idle whimsies accruing the status of scientific observations when they are nothing of the sort. The blessed Saint Goldacre recently did something similar. Having made a lucrative media career out of exposing bad science and bullshit, he recently suggested without any evidence whatsoever that the left are primarily responsible for the 'post-truth' phenomena currently exercising establishment opinion.<br /><br />The passage to truth is always multi-disciplinary, but that at base means accepting common standards of critical thinking and rules of evidence. I don't think that is too much to ask for, especially when scientific arguments have a history of being co-opted for ideological ends.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-90085198031718885202016-12-17T01:55:15.728+00:002016-12-17T01:55:15.728+00:00My main sociological theory is that the historical...My main sociological theory is that the historical oppressed status of women is due to an irrational fear within the male populace of the female orgasm and the sheer terror of a multiple orgasm.<br />jim mcleannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-16865173671856899002016-12-16T17:43:20.640+00:002016-12-16T17:43:20.640+00:00"swallow their speculation"
AKA the sur..."swallow their speculation"<br /><br />AKA the surest way to get STIs.<br /><br />So this post isn't about <i>Vulcan's Hammer</i> and <i>Solar Lottery</i>, then?Lidl_Janusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-43714283710797962742016-12-16T17:14:34.112+00:002016-12-16T17:14:34.112+00:00EDIT - reading my comment over, I come across rath...EDIT - reading my comment over, I come across rather aggressively. As a member of a naturally cooperative primate species, this was not my intention. Of course the scientific enterprise is as ideologically charged as any other, and needs to be read as such. My dismay was rather at what I perceived as the implication in your piece that somehow scientists don't understand this, and need sociologists approval before advancing their ideas... <br /><br />The ghost of Stephen Jay Gould's ghastly theory of "Non Overlapping Magisteria" seemed to be hovering nearby, and that made me jumpy. MikeBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-52952491389409066722016-12-16T11:53:43.424+00:002016-12-16T11:53:43.424+00:00So what exactly are you suggesting, Phil?
That sc...So what exactly are you suggesting, Phil?<br /><br />That scientific enquiry into the evolution of H sapiens should be forbidden in case it turns out that in proto-humans a million years or more ago, males who maintained a harem of females left more offspring than those who did not?<br /><br />That where there might be several competing theories, we should declare them all equally likely to be true - so we can chose the one that is most politically congenial? (Apparently so, as you state that, "It doesn't matter how informed the guesswork is..." Really?!)<br /><br />Or maybe that every scientific paper that you think risks "naturalising...oppression" "must be challenged". Presumably this is an extra level of scrutiny beyond that of normal peer review and regardless of whether it might be factually correct. (I expect we will need a special Party subcommittee to do this job.) <br /><br />Alternatively, if you want to see how it is possible for a proper primatologist to reconcile sometimes uncomfortable observations with a progressive outlook, and without panicking about, "naturalising oppression", I'd recommend reading some Sarah Blaffer Hrdy. <br /><br /> MikeBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-86109210346519800792016-12-16T09:38:30.504+00:002016-12-16T09:38:30.504+00:00Hi
I agree that there is often too much speculativ...Hi<br />I agree that there is often too much speculative work around scientific evidence probably to render it more interesting or palatable for the non scientists. However you kind of fall in the same trap, implying the development of agriculture and sedebtarism is at the origin of monogamy. There are plenty of non sedentary non agricultural societies that practise monogamy and polygamy can be found in sedentary cultures. In fact polygamy is still largely practised in monogamous societies even though it's seen as immoral or illegal.. Depending on how powerful you are...Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952081474448295478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-38662888947793435432016-12-16T08:15:58.318+00:002016-12-16T08:15:58.318+00:00"What we lack in bone we more than make up in..."What we lack in bone we more than make up in length and girth." Bet you say that to all the ladies.Speedynoreply@blogger.com