Comments on: Cold Tolerance Study Yields No Useful Information http://blog.sarcasmsociety.com/science-technology/cold-tolerance-study-yields-no-useful-information.html The World, brought to you by the Sarcasm Society Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:14:04 +0000 hourly 1 By: april http://blog.sarcasmsociety.com/science-technology/cold-tolerance-study-yields-no-useful-information.html/comment-page-1#comment-1466 april Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:44:34 +0000 http://blog.sarcasmsociety.com/?p=253#comment-1466 Physics, you must be some sort of rocket scientist or something. Physics, you must be some sort of rocket scientist or something.

]]> By: Physics http://blog.sarcasmsociety.com/science-technology/cold-tolerance-study-yields-no-useful-information.html/comment-page-1#comment-1440 Physics Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:47:09 +0000 http://blog.sarcasmsociety.com/?p=253#comment-1440 I'm afraid there is some misunderstanding about what science is. The quoted research, which I have not read and I take at face value from the article, provides only data and simple conclusions from it. Science is done by putting observations into a bigger pictures that involve, not only other observations, but also models/theories that makes sense of a collection of observations and even make some predictions. So, collecting data, such as the one discussed in the article, is the basis for doing science, rather than the science itself. Admittedly, people who do this are also scientists. The method of collecting such observations, especially in the social /behavioural / medical and sometimes biological fields involves statistical arguments. I assume that this is what the numbers represent - a study over a group of people. What you experience with your female partner is not a good enough statistic. Surely you couldn't tell from your daily experience that the difference in core temperature is 0.4F, etc. Or do you claim that precision is also not an issue that scientists should be concerned with? Whether this is worth the money invested in the study is an even more ambiguous question. With such considerations people like Einstein would never have got any support to study general relativity - one of the loveliest pieces f science mankind seem to boast. What was that good for in practical life other than 80 years later for the GPS system? I therefore agree with one of the above commenters. This was not too exciting. You have so many better articles. Next. Respectfully, Physics I’m afraid there is some misunderstanding about what science is. The quoted research, which I have not read and I take at face value from the article, provides only data and simple conclusions from it. Science is done by putting observations into a bigger pictures that involve, not only other observations, but also models/theories that makes sense of a collection of observations and even make some predictions.
So, collecting data, such as the one discussed in the article, is the basis for doing science, rather than the science itself. Admittedly, people who do this are also scientists.

The method of collecting such observations, especially in the social /behavioural / medical and sometimes biological fields involves statistical arguments. I assume that this is what the numbers represent – a study over a group of people. What you experience with your female partner is not a good enough statistic. Surely you couldn’t tell from your daily experience that the difference in core temperature is 0.4F, etc. Or do you claim that precision is also not an issue that scientists should be concerned with?

Whether this is worth the money invested in the study is an even more ambiguous question. With such considerations people like Einstein would never have got any support to study general relativity – one of the loveliest pieces f science mankind seem to boast. What was that good for in practical life other than 80 years later for the GPS system?

I therefore agree with one of the above commenters. This was not too exciting. You have so many better articles. Next.

Respectfully,
Physics

]]> By: Luke http://blog.sarcasmsociety.com/science-technology/cold-tolerance-study-yields-no-useful-information.html/comment-page-1#comment-1439 Luke Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:23:06 +0000 http://blog.sarcasmsociety.com/?p=253#comment-1439 Research like this doesn't cost millions, not even hundreds of thousands. If you really believe it takes so much time and money to get a few dozens of men & women and take the temperature of their core and limbs, that's a massive FAIL. Research like this doesn’t cost millions, not even hundreds of thousands. If you really believe it takes so much time and money to get a few dozens of men & women and take the temperature of their core and limbs, that’s a massive FAIL.

]]> By: Ryan http://blog.sarcasmsociety.com/science-technology/cold-tolerance-study-yields-no-useful-information.html/comment-page-1#comment-1438 Ryan Sat, 31 Oct 2009 06:26:00 +0000 http://blog.sarcasmsociety.com/?p=253#comment-1438 Scientists test for common sense becasue every once in awhile, it turns out to be flat out wrong. Examples include the Stanford Prison experiment done by Philip Zimbardo and the infamous "shock experiment" (I can't remember the actual name right now) by Stanley Milgram. Both of these were Psychology experiments by the way. And the results of both of them totally defied what most would assume would've happened based on "common sense". Others would include the experiments that showed the "bystander effect" phenomenon which is the more people there are around you, the less likely you are to get any help in any given situation (including life threatening ones, like rape and murder). This was all just an FYI by the way, I wasn't reaming anyone out for being "ignorant of science". No, that's not sarcasm Scientists test for common sense becasue every once in awhile, it turns out to be flat out wrong. Examples include the Stanford Prison experiment done by Philip Zimbardo and the infamous “shock experiment” (I can’t remember the actual name right now) by Stanley Milgram. Both of these were Psychology experiments by the way. And the results of both of them totally defied what most would assume would’ve happened based on “common sense”. Others would include the experiments that showed the “bystander effect” phenomenon which is the more people there are around you, the less likely you are to get any help in any given situation (including life threatening ones, like rape and murder).

This was all just an FYI by the way, I wasn’t reaming anyone out for being “ignorant of science”. No, that’s not sarcasm

]]> By: Katherine http://blog.sarcasmsociety.com/science-technology/cold-tolerance-study-yields-no-useful-information.html/comment-page-1#comment-1437 Katherine Sat, 31 Oct 2009 05:37:24 +0000 http://blog.sarcasmsociety.com/?p=253#comment-1437 Maybe they just faked the study so that they could observe real women up close. Maybe they just faked the study so that they could observe real women up close.

]]> By: Meli http://blog.sarcasmsociety.com/science-technology/cold-tolerance-study-yields-no-useful-information.html/comment-page-1#comment-1436 Meli Sat, 31 Oct 2009 05:17:53 +0000 http://blog.sarcasmsociety.com/?p=253#comment-1436 The POINT of this, to the stupid, is that they did a study that revealed information that everyone knew. And they probably spent millions doing it. The POINT of this, to the stupid, is that they did a study that revealed information that everyone knew. And they probably spent millions doing it.

]]> By: kudos http://blog.sarcasmsociety.com/science-technology/cold-tolerance-study-yields-no-useful-information.html/comment-page-1#comment-1435 kudos Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:12:18 +0000 http://blog.sarcasmsociety.com/?p=253#comment-1435 I found it funny that there was nothing to get. I found it funny that there was nothing to get.

]]> By: Chris http://blog.sarcasmsociety.com/science-technology/cold-tolerance-study-yields-no-useful-information.html/comment-page-1#comment-1434 Chris Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:39:45 +0000 http://blog.sarcasmsociety.com/?p=253#comment-1434 LOL, it was pretty damned funny. you just didn't get it.. LOL, it was pretty damned funny. you just didn’t get it..

]]> By: Dustin http://blog.sarcasmsociety.com/science-technology/cold-tolerance-study-yields-no-useful-information.html/comment-page-1#comment-1433 Dustin Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:27:07 +0000 http://blog.sarcasmsociety.com/?p=253#comment-1433 Not funny. Next? Not funny. Next?

]]>