Modern science thrives on pretention. We can't just publish something interesting, we always feel compelled arguing why it's important and stress its ground-breaking novelty. On the other hand, everyone can use computers, and those computers can do fancy analyses provided you have some data. And they always get it right, so why should editors and reviewers bother about the results?
May the bridges I burned today light the way to those I'll burn tomorrow – A blog for lost scientists and curious non-scientists.
#FightTheFog (19) ancestors (3) animals (3) artwork (9) Austria (2) bad science (11) Beall's legacy (7) bias (4) biogeography (5) branch support (4) Bundestagswahl (7) comment (18) curiosities (1) data links (3) European (9) evolution (1) France (9) free science (5) funny things (3) Germany (10) how-to-analyse (10) in Deutsch (31) infographics (34) introduction (1) Ireland (1) Köppen-Geiger (3) Landtagswahlen (10) languages (5) lost science (3) not science (8) oddities (14) open access (1) open data (3) palaeontology (13) peer review (10) people (1) Philosophisches (8) phylo-networks (16) plants (22) politics (30) pollen (4) public interest (20) satire (10) scam (5) science-related (20) Sweden (4) systematics (3) terminology (5) tips (27) travelling (2) USA (18) Wahl-O-Mat (11)
In Nurses We Trust (and elect the opposite)
I found a new twitter account by the Spectator Index posting funny lists based on polls, studies etc. Such as: how long you have to work to buy a burger. One last week was a Gallup poll asking (U.S.) Americans how they judge the ethics of professionals. A nice piece of unscripted satire.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)