When a group of British academic researchers reported last spring that women fond of eating breakfast cereal were more likely to give birth to boys, the story was lapped up by journalists the world over. "Skip breakfast for a daughter, eat up your cereals for a son," advised the Economist, just one of many publications to seize on the report.
The problem with this fascinating study? It appears to be wrong. An analysis led by Stan Young of the National Institute for Statistical Sciences found that the original conclusion was based on poor statistics and is probably the result of chance.
So far, Young's rebuttal, published in January, has received little notice. That it is ignored by many of the media outlets that lavished attention on the original report isn't surprising; in fact, the most remarkable thing is how ordinary that lack of attention may be. A lot of science, and journalism it turns out, can't withstand serious scrutiny. Thoughtful analysis by John Ioannidis suggests that more than half of published scientific research findings can't be replicated by other researchers. The WaPo is on to something here...
Part of the problem is that we've been conditioned to trust university research. It is based, after all, on the presumably lofty motives of its practitioners. What's not to like about science carried out by academics who have nobly dedicated their lives to understanding the unknown, furthering knowledge and serving humanity? Yeah, sure, just like the Main Stream Media.
Within academia's ivied walls (where I spent more than two decades), the view is a bit different. The university is not a peaceable kingdom, and life is far more Hobbesian. Henry Kissinger was on to something when he observed that "university politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." In contrast to the academia-vs.-industry trope, hubris, self-interest and ambition are not checked at the university door; arguably, they are essential for admission and required for professional success.
Posted by: Bobby ||
03/14/2009 07:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11136 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
women fond of eating breakfast cereal were more likely to give birth to boys,
"This science is settled! End of discussion"
/AlGore
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/14/2009 8:26 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Scientific institutions need to crack down on press releases. The best bet would be to require that they be released via a public information office that would insure that it did not encourage bad inferences.
#4
When a group of British academic researchers reported last spring that women fond of eating breakfast cereal were more likely to give birth to boys, the story was lapped up by journalists the world over. "Skip breakfast for a daughter, eat up your cereals for a son," advised the Economist, just one of many publications to seize on the report.
The problem with this fascinating study? It appears to be wrong. An analysis led by Stan Young of the National Institute for Statistical Sciences found that the original conclusion was based on poor statistics and is probably the result of chance.
So far, Young's rebuttal, published in January, has received little notice. That it is ignored by many of the media outlets that lavished attention on the original report isn't surprising; in fact, the most remarkable thing is how ordinary that lack of attention may be. A lot of science, and journalism it turns out, can't withstand serious scrutiny. Thoughtful analysis by John Ioannidis suggests that more than half of published scientific research findings can't be replicated by other researchers.
The WaPo is on to something here...
Part of the problem is that we've been conditioned to trust university research. It is based, after all, on the presumably lofty motives of its practitioners. What's not to like about science carried out by academics who have nobly dedicated their lives to understanding the unknown, furthering knowledge and serving humanity...
and getting as much swag from gov't grants and foundations and invites to tony conferences as possible.
#6
I don't know. It must be true. My wife ate cereal for breakfast all the time. We had five sons. QED.
Of course, some good friends of ours had six daughters, and I'll bet the woman ate cereal too.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
03/14/2009 13:16 Comments ||
Top||
How to Lie with Statistics is a book written by Darrell Huff in 1954 presenting an introduction to statistics for the general reader. It is a brief, breezy, illustrated volume outlining common errors, both intentional and unintentional, associated with the interpretation of statistics, and how these errors can lead to inaccurate conclusions. It has become one of the most widely read statistics books in history (even though Huff was not a statistician), with over one and a half million copies sold in the English-language edition[1]. It has also been widely translated.
The faculty of the Department of Joint, Interagency & Multinational Operations (DJIMO) offer topics for further discussion on a wide range of issues.
Eagle vs. Dragon - U.S. & China Maritime Encounter .... hit the link
Peter Wehner This is about as strong as it gets without using words like "charlatan" "liar" "crook" "prevaricator" "conman".
In the matter of just 50 days, a fissure has widened into a split; the split has become a gap; and the gap is becoming a gulf. I have in mind the extraordinary contradiction between what President Obama says and what he does.
Consider a partial list, starting with earmarks. During the campaign, Obama said, "the truth is, our earmark system -- what's called pork-barrel spending in Washington -- is fraught with abuse. It badly needs reform -- which is why I didn't request a single earmark last year, why I've released all my previous requests for the public to see, why I've pledged to slash earmarks by more than half when I am President of the United States." And as ABC's Jake Tapper pointed out, after John McCain picked Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, Obama criticized her for having been of two minds on earmarks. "When you have been taking all these earmarks when it is convenient and then suddenly you are the champion anti-earmark person," Obama said, "that is not change, come on. I mean, words mean something."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Omoter Speaking for Boskone7794 ||
03/14/2009 00:31 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11132 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'll say it:
he's a liar, a fake, an empty suit, a radical, and I HOPE HE FAILS, because if he succeeds, my country is damaged, perhaps beyond repair
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/14/2009 7:01 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I'm always listening for the words not said. Interesting how the phrase "our first Black president" appears to have quietly faded away. Success has many fathers, but failure only one.
Ayn Rand died more than a quarter of a century ago, yet her name appears regularly in discussions of our current economic turmoil. Pundits including Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli urge listeners to read her books, and her magnum opus, "Atlas Shrugged," is selling at a faster rate today than at any time during its 51-year history.
There's a reason. In "Atlas," Rand tells the story of the U.S. economy crumbling under the weight of crushing government interventions and regulations. Meanwhile, blaming greed and the free market, Washington responds with more controls that only deepen the crisis. Sound familiar?
The novel's eerily prophetic nature is no coincidence. "If you understand the dominant philosophy of a society," Rand wrote elsewhere in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," "you can predict its course." Economic crises and runaway government power grabs don't just happen by themselves; they are the product of the philosophical ideas prevalent in a society -- particularly its dominant moral ideas.
Why do we accept the budget-busting costs of a welfare state? Because it implements the moral ideal of self-sacrifice to the needy. Why do so few protest the endless regulatory burdens placed on businessmen? Because businessmen are pursuing their self-interest, which we have been taught is dangerous and immoral. Why did the government go on a crusade to promote "affordable housing," which meant forcing banks to make loans to unqualified home buyers? Because we believe people need to be homeowners, whether or not they can afford to pay for houses.
The message is always the same: "Selfishness is evil; sacrifice for the needs of others is good." But Rand said this message is wrong -- selfishness, rather than being evil, is a virtue. By this she did not mean exploiting others à la Bernie Madoff. Selfishness -- that is, concern with one's genuine, long-range interest -- she wrote, required a man to think, to produce, and to prosper by trading with others voluntarily to mutual benefit.
Rand also noted that only an ethic of rational selfishness can justify the pursuit of profit that is the basis of capitalism -- and that so long as self-interest is tainted by moral suspicion, the profit motive will continue to take the rap for every imaginable (or imagined) social ill and economic disaster. Just look how our present crisis has been attributed to the free market instead of government intervention -- and how proposed solutions inevitably involve yet more government intervention to rein in the pursuit of self-interest.
Rand offered us a way out -- to fight for a morality of rational self-interest, and for capitalism, the system which is its expression. And that is the source of her relevance today.
Dr. Brook is president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. So much for those tired worn out old theories which don't work.
Posted by: Omoter Speaking for Boskone7794 ||
03/14/2009 00:16 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So long as the looters persist she will remain relevant.
#4
Rand is not, perhaps, an end point for a mature, rational, and intelligent adult, but definitely a necessary way-marker.
She understood the basics and communicated them well. Others have picked up the ball and run further with it. But her ideas get you most of the way to the goal line.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
03/14/2009 6:41 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
#6
no mo uro. True but as you point out it is a good starting point. In these times of cliff note based learning anything which can touch a chord and cause people to respond with an idea that resonates is valuable. Much of what is being experienced now in the US is a repeat of the UK experience from the time of the Speeham Land Act up until the Poor Law Reform of 1832. But few if anyone today would have a clue about it much less an understanding of the debates that occurred at that time. The Benthamite arguement won the day at that time and it will win in the US again in time but in the age worn but undiminished adage "those who ignore history are bound to repeat it".
Essentially over that period the UK introduced the Corn Laws which guaranteed a basic income. It didn't take long for the obvious to occur. If you didn't work at all you got everything. So as time progressed the growing tax burden fell on the middle class which ultimately revolted. It took 30 years but it did usher in the Reform Act and the Poor Law Reform which remade the political landscape of the UK. Essentially the lesson learned is that it is the middle class which is the most relevant in bringing about change because they are the biggest group of producers, they have the most to lose and they respond most adversely to confiscatory taxation. Obama is instigating the Allinsky mode of deception to con the middle class that only the wealthy are going to pay the taxes. It is unmitigated crap. Because the middle class is the only real source of revenue. It will fail. The question is how much do people want to suffer before it is evident? You would be aware of the frog analogy. The good thing about the current rush to change is that it is noticeable and therefore is getting a reaction unlike the creeping changes which have sneaked up on the UK and Europe, emasculating them.
Personally, I disagree with the libertarian view on the role of the Military, but the last thing that anyone should do is try and fit their own thinking within the narrow confining walls of the predetermined philosphy.
#7
Everything I'm reading says that those who make up the middle class are acting as if they realize the taxes are going to hit them, sooner rather than later, no matter what they believe at the conscious level.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The problem with this fascinating study? It appears to be wrong. An analysis led by Stan Young of the National Institute for Statistical Sciences found that the original conclusion was based on poor statistics and is probably the result of chance. 
