Comments on: The Science of Violence in Mice and Men http://www.christandpopculture.com/general-culture/the-science-of-violence-in-mice-and-men/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-science-of-violence-in-mice-and-men Where The Christian Faith Meets The Common Knowledge of Our Age Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:38:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Alan Noble http://www.christandpopculture.com/general-culture/the-science-of-violence-in-mice-and-men/#comment-529 Alan Noble Sun, 03 Feb 2008 01:28:10 +0000 http://www.christandpopculture.com/general-culture/the-science-of-violence-in-mice-and-men/#comment-529 A recent article in the San Fransisco Gate echoes the main ideas of this post, albeit with humor. It's called, <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/02/01/notes020108.DTL" rel="nofollow">Study says many studies suck: Research shows we are far too drunk on stupid studies that tell us what research shows</a>. It's a great read, although there is some profanity. A recent article in the San Fransisco Gate echoes the main ideas of this post, albeit with humor. It’s called, Study says many studies suck: Research shows we are far too drunk on stupid studies that tell us what research shows.

It’s a great read, although there is some profanity.

]]> By: ChestertonianRambler http://www.christandpopculture.com/general-culture/the-science-of-violence-in-mice-and-men/#comment-464 ChestertonianRambler Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:04:03 +0000 http://www.christandpopculture.com/general-culture/the-science-of-violence-in-mice-and-men/#comment-464 "The fundamental problem of utilitarianism is that “benefit” is always arbitrarily defined." I don't think I've ever seen it put that succinctly before. Good point. “The fundamental problem of utilitarianism is that “benefit” is always arbitrarily defined.”

I don’t think I’ve ever seen it put that succinctly before. Good point.

]]> By: Geoffrey Seven http://www.christandpopculture.com/general-culture/the-science-of-violence-in-mice-and-men/#comment-463 Geoffrey Seven Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:20:27 +0000 http://www.christandpopculture.com/general-culture/the-science-of-violence-in-mice-and-men/#comment-463 Thanks for clarifying that, Alan. What you are saying is very true in a lot of ways. There is always the danger that people will see something as more proven than it really is. And certainly, the media love sensation more than anything because it drives ratings and eyeballs. Thanks for clarifying that, Alan. What you are saying is very true in a lot of ways. There is always the danger that people will see something as more proven than it really is. And certainly, the media love sensation more than anything because it drives ratings and eyeballs.

]]> By: Alan Noble http://www.christandpopculture.com/general-culture/the-science-of-violence-in-mice-and-men/#comment-462 Alan Noble Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:45:25 +0000 http://www.christandpopculture.com/general-culture/the-science-of-violence-in-mice-and-men/#comment-462 Geoffrey, I certainly agree about wanting to know the results of studies like these, and I did not mean to suggest that this article distorts facts about the study. My point was that typically (as in this case) the media presents scientific studies as if they were all but conclusive in order to create a more sensational article. People don't want to read about what scientists might be discovering, they want to hear what they have discovered. It's not so much that the article distorts, it is that it, and many others like it, tend to omit any serious indication that the study is tentative and needs to be tested and challenged--which is a part of the scientific process. Although this omission does not change the facts of the study, it does affect the way people interpret the validity of those facts, which I believe can be a serious problem. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear before. -alan Geoffrey, I certainly agree about wanting to know the results of studies like these, and I did not mean to suggest that this article distorts facts about the study.

My point was that typically (as in this case) the media presents scientific studies as if they were all but conclusive in order to create a more sensational article.

People don’t want to read about what scientists might be discovering, they want to hear what they have discovered. It’s not so much that the article distorts, it is that it, and many others like it, tend to omit any serious indication that the study is tentative and needs to be tested and challenged–which is a part of the scientific process.

Although this omission does not change the facts of the study, it does affect the way people interpret the validity of those facts, which I believe can be a serious problem.

I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear before.

-alan

]]> By: Geoffrey Seven http://www.christandpopculture.com/general-culture/the-science-of-violence-in-mice-and-men/#comment-461 Geoffrey Seven Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:21:02 +0000 http://www.christandpopculture.com/general-culture/the-science-of-violence-in-mice-and-men/#comment-461 I am not sure why you are taking the position that the facts in the article were distorted -- for profit or any other reason. That does not appear obvious to me from reading the article. My own feeling is that if we do get a positive physiological jolt from violence, I would rather know about it than not know about it. I am not sure why you are taking the position that the facts in the article were distorted — for profit or any other reason. That does not appear obvious to me from reading the article.

My own feeling is that if we do get a positive physiological jolt from violence, I would rather know about it than not know about it.

]]>