When Scientists Talk Rot
If there were no climate science, evolutionary biology would win the prize for nonsensical blithering masquerading as reason. A new "study" by "experts" from England and Holland proves that guys like - wait for it! - pretty girls.
Men weigh up potential partners almost instantaneously based on their appearance because their "ancient" genetic preference for attractive mates leads them to, experts claim.
According to research, a woman with an attractive face is taken by men to be fertile and able to continue the family line, appealing to the man's survival instinct.
Who says? Where's the proof? Why is this even science? I know there was once a study claiming that fertile women are prettier, but I just don't believe it. I mean, dude, look around. Evolutionary nonsense has replaced Freudian nonsense as scientists' latest attempt to explain away the ineffable. As with Freudianism, the reasoning is wholly circular and proves itself without reference to the world. And as with Freudianism, reasoned criticism is met with personal attack. If I could get funding for stuff like this, I would quit work altogether.
- Comment (4)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: When Scientists Talk Rot
A similar claim I've heard before is that beauty is based on symmetry, which is an indicator for good health (or at least asymmetry indicates bad health). Same with clear skin. So there is some plausibility that symmetry and good skin are proxies for good health, which is good for fertility.
But you have a point that it doesn't really rise to the level of science.
Re: When Scientists Talk Rot
I think the driving force is anthropogenic global warming envy. After all, the proponents of that scam have gotten by quite handily in terms of money, fame and, probably, mates.
May '10
Re: When Scientists Talk Rot
George, don't forget the "C"; Pat Michaels, for example, talks about some minor contributory share of AGW, but points out that it is benign or beneficial. The Gore Panic is predicated on catrastrophic change, operating out of control due to large albedo-change-driven (and almost surely non-existent) positive feedback.
But what academic researcher wouldn't be envious of the scam? Unlimited research funds and guaranteed publication as long as you say the right thing, because the peer review process is controlled by the Warming Brotherhood.
May '10
Re: When Scientists Talk Rot
Eventually this very study will be cited to explain the appeal of Palin to conservatives, who are, you know, more primative.