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

Re: FYI -- bye-bye, 3/4?

--- On Mon, 2/8/10, David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:

> >  And hello, more logical
> 2/3...
> >
> >  <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100203101124.htm>
> Some people disagree with this, too, and for seemingly good
> reasons.
> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/nothing_will_stop_the_never-en.php#comment-2258567

Well, I was going to read the paper, but that's a joke, I don't have the time. 
And certainly it is no surprise generally that "some people disagree". 

The reason I post is this; apparently the "good reasons" part went over my 
head, as did the part about what exactly "they" don't agree with...

I infer that Dodds' method was throw as much peer-reviewed data as was 
available on a scatter-plot and find the slope, which was 2/3, and then advance 
a hypothesis about underlying mechanical causes.

What is the objection? Is the analysis flawed by bad data, or an incomplete 
sample? Is the trend valid empirically but "they" don't like his "explanation"? 

Or is there a basic disapproval of the search for a trend?

To get back to dinosaurs -- interesting quote from the PR: "Especially for 
smaller guys," Dodds says, "like birds, it's just absolutely, stone-cold 2/3."