But my experimental aspirations were torpedoed when I discovered that the attractiveness scores are blanked out when you search by keyword. I have no idea why,

I would offer a hypothesis: amihotornot want you to rate the people your search has found you, so won’t show you their scores until you’ve contributed your opinion to the pile. They naturally don’t want you, when rating someone, to know what their existing scores are – folk are apt to adjusting their opinions in response to what they’ve heard of others’ opinions.

Of course the first point only indicates that stories will be what readers /want/ to read but not necessarily what they /like/ to read. “The Hidden Killer In Your Home”. “How Paedophiles Use Pets To Trap YOUR Children”. “A Country Thousands Of Miles Away From Us, With No Aeroplanes, Has Dangerous Weapons” – waell, that shades over into the “other interests”.

www.badscience.net/?p=177#comment-351

In our Bad Science column, page 13, February 25, the writer drew attention to an item in the Independent newspaper headed Miracle cures shown to work, which had said incorrectly that doctors had found statistical evidence that some alternative treatments could cure apparently terminal illness. The Guardian story failed to acknowledge that the Independent had published a correction on February 17 which made it clear that the error was not the fault of the bylined author of the article. Apologies.

i found this puzzling since i deliberately didn’t mention the name of the bylined author who complained, specifically because i thought the error had nothing to do with him. i’m amazed he felt aggrieved, because not only did i not name him, but the independent’s article and the independent’s correction (which appeared four weeks after their “miracle cures” article) have been deleted from their site, so a reader would have a job on their hands finding out who the bylined author was, even if they really wanted to.

let me be absolutely clear, however, that i didn’t mention the independent’s correction (which appeared four weeks after their “miracle cures” article) for two reasons. firstly, because the independent’s correction (which appeared four weeks after their “miracle cures” article) appeared suddenly in the independent after i blogged about their “miracle cures” error, rang them about it, and emailed the author. however i am quite happy to suspend grandiosity and assume that the independent were going print their correction anyway. if you’re really interested you can watch the chronology of this miracle cures story developing over a few days on the original blog thread here: www.badscience.net/?p=204#comments

but secondly, and more importantly, i don’t care if the independent did print a correction (which appeared four weeks after their “miracle cures” article) and say it was a “production error”. the story is: they concocted a miracle cures story out of nothing. the story is that all newspapers routinely dress stories up to be something that they’re not, miracle cures or deadly threats. like most readers, i have no interest in whether it’s a “production error”, or one reporter at fault, because even when it is one reporter’s “fault” they’re only reflecting the systemic problems in news reporting of science and health, which are demonstrably so severe that the papers simply aren’t even worth considering as a reliable source of information on those subjects.

I have posted it up at post 46 on the ‘It’s a Miracle’ Thread.

There was a huge and a very obvious division at this event.

If you were young, and beautiful and insufferable you were in front of the camera.

If you were ugly and fat and relatively sane you were on the production side of things.

Everyone assumed I was on the production side of things…

- roGER

Go and look up the definition of “ad hominem”. It doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.

Noam Chomsky has what now to do with rating attractiveness or the attractiveness of faecal matter or miracle cures?? Ok the first reference was a quote but the rest is …. tripe.

Yes:-)

And never meant to – was commenting on all parties and the nature of prejudice.

I am kind of thinking that ad hominem and straw man arguments might indicate some prejudice (negative emotional reaction? Ever had a row with a partner?). Those articles still had valid comments and questions about Chomsky’s theories.

Nah, sorry Dr Ben, nothing is as much fun as kittenwar.com/

But it’s not saying they are wrong because they are naive, it’s saying they are wrong (and naive) because they rely on grammar.

It might be a straw man, though – I don’t know enough about what ‘Chomskians’ believe.