[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Shaking up the bird family tree

>>I guess that's sort of a truism about the media in general, but
>>apparently the paper actually proposes such a thing - the quote was,
>>in fact, faithful to the study. (as was pointed out, below)
>>Sorry, that was me banging my head against the keyboard.

In the blog post I've just written about the paper
blems-with-science.html - which is mostly a background post and
probably won't contain much if anything that's news to readers of the
DML) I've decided to be charitable and assume that the need to
contract things down to fit into _Science_ has led to a bit of
misleading sentence-structuring. Sometimes I really don't like

    And while I'm being snarky, I'm kind of peeved that these results
are such big news just because they're in _Science_. It's a
significant study, sure, but were Fain & Houde (2004) and Ericson et
al. (2006) never published? Again, in no way the fault of the authors
of the paper, but a few reporters (both amateur and professional) are
to be faulted for not putting the paper in context.

    Snark over and withdrawn,

        Christopher Taylor