Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Why We Have So Much "Duh" Science

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the taking-nothing-for-granted dept.

Science 299

Hugh Pickens writes "Eryn Brown writes in the LA Times that accounts of 'duh' research abound as studies show that driving ability worsens in people with early Alzheimer's disease, that women who get epidurals experience less pain during childbirth than women who don't, that young men who are obese have lower odds of getting married than thinner peers, and that making exercise more fun might improve fitness among teens. But there's more to duh research than meets the eye writes Brown as experts say they have to prove the obvious again and again to influence perceptions and policy. 'Think about the number of studies that had to be published for people to realize smoking is bad for you,' says Ronald J. Iannotti, a psychologist at the National Institutes of Health. 'There are some subjects where it seems you can never publish enough.' Kyle Stanford, a professor of the philosophy of science at UC Irvine, thinks the professionalization of science has led researchers — who must win grants to pay their bills — to ask timid questions and research that hews to established theories is more likely to be funded, even if it contributes little to knowledge. Perhaps most important, sometimes a study that seems poised to affirm the conventional wisdom produces a surprise. 'Many have taken the value of popular programs like DARE — in which police warn kids about the dangers of drug use — as an article of faith,' writes Brown. 'But Dennis Rosenbaum of the University of Illinois at Chicago and other researchers have shown that the program has been ineffective and may even increase drug use in some cases.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

More research is required (4, Funny)

revlayle (964221) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312878)


Re:More research is required (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36313020)

                                              Version 3, 29 June 2007

  Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/>
  Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
  of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.


    The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for
software and other kinds of works.

    The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed
to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast,
the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to
share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free
software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the
GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to
any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to
your programs, too.

    When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you
want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new
free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

    To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you
these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have
certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if
you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.

    For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same
freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive
or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they
know their rights.

    Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps:
(1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License
giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.

    For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains
that there is no warranty for this free software. For both users' and
authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as
changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to
authors of previous versions.

    Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run
modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer
can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of
protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic
pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to
use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we
have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those
products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we
stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions
of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users.

    Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents.
States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of
software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to
avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could
make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that
patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.

    The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.

                                              TERMS AND CONDITIONS

    0. Definitions.

    "This License" refers to version 3 of the GNU General Public License.

    "Copyright" also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of
works, such as semiconductor masks.

    "The Program" refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this
License. Each licensee is addressed as "you". "Licensees" and
"recipients" may be individuals or organizations.

    To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work
in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an
exact copy. The resulting work is called a "modified version" of the
earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work.

    A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based
on the Program.

    To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without
permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for
infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a
computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying,
distribution (with or without modification), making available to the
public, and in some countries other activities as well.

    To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other
parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through
a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.

    An interactive user interface displays "Appropriate Legal Notices"
to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible
feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2)
tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the
extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the
work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If
the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a
menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion.

    1. Source Code.

    The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work
for making modifications to it. "Object code" means any non-source
form of a work.

    A "Standard Interface" means an interface that either is an official
standard defined by a recognized standards body, or, in the case of
interfaces specified for a particular programming language, one that
is widely used among developers working in that language.

    The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other
than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of
packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major
Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that
Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an
implementation is available to the public in source code form. A
"Major Component", in this context, means a major essential component
(kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system
(if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to
produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.

    The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all
the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
control those activities. However, it does not include the work's
System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free
programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but
which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source
includes interface definition files associated with source files for
the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically
linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require,
such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those
subprograms and other parts of the work.

    The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users
can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding

    The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that
same work.

    2. Basic Permissions.

    All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated
conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited
permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a
covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its
content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your
rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.

    You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains
in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose
of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you
with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with
the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do
not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works
for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction
and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of
your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

    Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under
the conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10
makes it unnecessary.

    3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.

    No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological
measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article
11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or
similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such

    When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid
circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention
is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to
the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or
modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's
users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of
technological measures.

    4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.

    You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you
receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice;
keep intact all notices stating that this License and any
non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code;
keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all
recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

    You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey,
and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

    5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.

    You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to
produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the
terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

        a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified
        it, and giving a relevant date.

        b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is
        released under this License and any conditions added under section
        7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to
        "keep intact all notices".

        c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
        License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This
        License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7
        additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts,
        regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no
        permission to license muh dick in any other way, but it does not
        invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.

        d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display
        Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive
        interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your
        work need not make them do so.

    A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work,
and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program,
in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
"aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not
used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users
beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work
in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other
parts of the aggregate.

    6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.

    You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the
machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License,
in one of these ways:

        a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
        (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the
        Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium
        customarily used for software interchange.

        b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
        (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a
        written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as
        long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product
        model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a
        copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the
        product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical
        medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no
        more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this
        conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the
        Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.

        c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the
        written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This
        alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and
        only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord
        with subsection 6b.

        d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated
        place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
        Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
        further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the
        Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to
        copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source
        may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party)
        that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain
        clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the
        Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the
        Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is
        available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

        e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided
        you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding
        Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no
        charge under subsection 6d.

    A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded
from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be
included in conveying the object code work.

    A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product", which means any
tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family,
or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation
into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product,
doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular
product received by a particular user, "normally used" refers to a
typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status
of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user
actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product
is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial
commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent
the only significant mode of use of the product.

    "Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods,
procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install
and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from
a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must
suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object
code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because
modification has been made.

    If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or
specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as
part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the
User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a
fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the
Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied
by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply
if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install
modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has
been installed in ROM).

    The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a
requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates
for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for
the User Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a
network may be denied when the modification itself materially and
adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and
protocols for communication across the network.

    Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided,
in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly
documented (and with an implementation available to the public in
source code form), and must require no special password or key for
unpacking, reading or copying.

    7. Additional Terms.

    "Additional permissions" are terms that supplement the terms of this
License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions.
Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall
be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent
that they are valid under applicable law. If additional permissions
apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately
under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by
this License without regard to the additional permissions.

    When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option
remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of
it. (Additional permissions may be written to require their own
removal in certain cases when you modify the work.) You may place
additional permissions on material, added by you to a covered work,
for which you have or can give appropriate copyright permission.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of
that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:

        a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the
        terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or

        b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or
        author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal
        Notices displayed by works containing it; or

        c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or
        requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in
        reasonable ways as different from the original version; or

        d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or
        authors of the material; or

        e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some
        trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or

        f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that
        material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of
        it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for
        any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on
        those licensors and authors.

    All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains
a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this
License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms
of that license document, provided that the further restriction does
not survive such relicensing or conveying.

    If you add terms to a covered work in accord with this section, you
must place, in the relevant source files, a statement of the
additional terms that apply to those files, or a notice indicating
where to find the applicable terms.

    Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the
form of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions;
the above requirements apply either way.

    8. Termination.

    You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly
provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or
modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under
this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third
paragraph of section 11).

    However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your
license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a)
provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and
finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright
holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means
prior to 60 days after the cessation.

    Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is
reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the
violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have
received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that
copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after
your receipt of the notice.

    Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the
licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under
this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently
reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same
material under section 10.

    9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.

    You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or
run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work
occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission
to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However,
nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or
modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do
not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a
covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.

    10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.

    Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and
propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible
for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.

    An "entity transaction" is a transaction transferring control of an
organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an
organization, or merging organizations. If propagation of a covered
work results from an entity transaction, each party to that
transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever
licenses to the work the party's predecessor in interest had or could
give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession of the
Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in interest, if
the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts.

    You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the
rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may
not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of
rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation
(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that
any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for
sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.

    11. Patents.

    A "contributor" is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this
License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The
work thus licensed is called the contributor's "contributor version".

    A contributor's "essential patent claims" are all patent claims
owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or
hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted
by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version,
but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a
consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For
purposes of this definition, "control" includes the right to grant
patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of
this License.

    Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free
patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to
make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and
propagate the contents of its contributor version.

    In the following three paragraphs, a "patent license" is any express
agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent
(such as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to
sue for patent infringement). To "grant" such a patent license to a
party means to make such an agreement or commitment not to enforce a
patent against the party.

    If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license,
and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone
to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a
publicly available network server or other readily accessible means,
then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so
available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the
patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner
consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent
license to downstream recipients. "Knowingly relying" means you have
actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the
covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work
in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that
country that you have reason to believe are valid.

    If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or
arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a
covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties
receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify
or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license
you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered
work and works based on it.

    A patent license is "discriminatory" if it does not include within
the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is
conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are
specifically granted under this License. You may not convey a covered
work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is
in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment
to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying
the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the
parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory
patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work
conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily
for and in connection with specific products or compilations that
contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement,
or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.

    Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or limiting
any implied license or other defenses to infringement that may
otherwise be available to you under applicable patent law.

    12. No Surrender of Others' Freedom.

    If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a
covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may
not convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you
to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey
the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this
License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program.

    13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have
permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed
under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single
combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this
License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work,
but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License,
section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the
combination as such.

    14. Revised Versions of this License.

    The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of
the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.

    Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the
Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General
Public License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the
option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered
version or of any later version published by the Free Software
Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the
GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published
by the Free Software Foundation.

    If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future
versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's
public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you
to choose that version for the Program.

    Later license versions may give you additional or different
permissions. However, no additional obligations are imposed on any
author or copyright holder as a result of your choosing to follow a
later version.

    15. Disclaimer of Warranty.


    16. Limitation of Liability.


    17. Interpretation of Sections 15 and 16.

    If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided
above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms,
reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates
an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection with the
Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a
copy of the Program in return for a fee.

                                          END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

                        How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs

    If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.

    To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest
to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
state the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.

        <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
        Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>

        This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
        it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
        the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
        (at your option) any later version.

        This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
        but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
        GNU General Public License for more details.

        You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
        along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.

    If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short
notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode:

        <program> Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
        This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
        This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
        under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.

The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
parts of the General Public License. Of course, your program's commands
might be different; for a GUI interface, you would use an "about box".

    You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or school,
if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if necessary.
For more information on this, and how to apply and follow the GNU GPL, see

    The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your program
into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you
may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with
the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General
Public License instead of this License. But first, please read

"Duh" Studies (3, Funny)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312884)

to justify "Duh" studies.

Who would have thought?

Re:"Duh" Studies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312912)

Mind blown. Meta-"Duh" studies.

Re:"Duh" Studies (1)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313048)

Getting a college degree, regardless of the major, requires discipline, persistence, and dedication. Now, it may be that there are many people out there who "didn't leran anything" from college. But if you managed to get a reasonable GPA (3.0 or higher), then you probably learned something, and you actually had to take the time to study for your classes. When I interview someone who has a good GPA, this is evidence (although not proof) to me that they can be given work to do, and they will understand it and get it done. Someone without a college degree lacks that evidence. They MAY have that kind of discipline, but I can't guess that very well from a short interview. (An alternative might be good references from past employers.)

Some claim that it is theoretically possible to do well in classes and then promptly forget everything you crammed. But that's disingenuous and discounts the effects of (a) subconscious learning, and (b) meta-learning. Even if you can't recall things you learned at will, you are often able to recall them in context. You forgot that you learned something. And meta-learning is more of a mind-shaping thing, where spending the time to learn some new subject matter forces you to think about things in an unfamiliar way. Even if you forget all the facts, it creates a broader view that makes you more adaptable. (This is why I prefer interviewees who had diverse minors.)

After 9 years in industry, I decided to get a Ph.D. in Computer Science. I found the advanced core courses in the grad program to be challenging, but they were not a fundamentally new way of thinking. On the other hand, there were the grad courses I took in linguistics, psychology, cognitive science, and cognitive engineering. Each of those fields has a culture quite different from what I am used to in CS, and taking those courses introduced me to very different perspectives on things. In order to do well in those courses (I did get all A's), I had to learn to think like them. The CS courses made me feel like I had learned some things I didn't know before. The courses in other disciplines made me feel like I had grown intellectually.

As a side note, those aforementioned areas seem to attract more women. Indeed, psychology, at least in grad school, is _dominated_ by women. Now, I'm happily married, so I had no interest in finding anyone to date. But for someone else, this might be something to look into. For me, what I enjoyed was encountering yet another perspective. For various reasons (cultural, genetic, hormonal, etc.), men and women seem to have different perspectives on many things. And in grad school, most of the students are very smart. So taking psych courses had me interacting with women who not only have a different perspective but also have the IQ and meta-cognitiion to be able to convey that perspective well to others. (Some of the differences are due to the different field, while some seemed to be clearly due to gender.) So, I enjoyed very much the things I could learn from them, especially those things that they understood better than the males in their field. On a similar note, I also enjoyed working with women in engineering. The diversity they bring includes not just different approaches to engineering, but also a "softer feel" they bring to the workplace, like how they decorate their offices and interact with others. I would probably feel less of a need to focus on this if there weren't so few women in computer science and engineering.

Re:"Duh" Studies (1)

Colourspace (563895) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313404)

Interested in what you were saying right up to the sig. He's not a buddy of mine in the least, but can you get me some of what's clearly tamped into your pipe?

Re:"Duh" Studies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36313488)

"They MAY have that kind of discipline, but I can't guess that very well from a short interview."

Your interviewing skills suck. Why don't you get a PhD in that?

Re:"Duh" Studies (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36313058)

It's worse than that. If TFS is accurate, it's based on stupid logic.

'Think about the number of studies that had to be published for people to realize smoking is bad for you,'

No, jackass. These studies went on for, what, over half a century? People haven't kept on smoking because you haven't convinced them that it's unhealthy. They understand, just like they did 20 years ago when they started. It's because they start when they're young and they know they shouldn't, and then they're addicted. It's as simple as that.

Re:"Duh" Studies (3, Insightful)

CrazyDuke (529195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313778)

I think you may be attributing to deliberative action what is more frequently due to self-imposed incompetence. Seriously, the social psychology text I have OPENS with a pair of case studies done on people's reactions to differing results of studies into the health benefits of jogging. The chapter is on cognitive dissonance.

People want to believe they are making the right choices. So, they tend to believe that those choices are still correct even in the face of contradictory evidence. They will rationalize, minimize, attack the messenger, and all other manor of mental back-flips to avoid acknowledging to themselves or even seriously considering that they are in error, which would elicit negative emotions like guilt and shame.

You can't make people believe what they don't want to believe. If Cletus doesn't want to believe in gravity, you can push his ass off a cliff and he'll die thinking that the Debil made him fall or some such nonsense. About the best you can hope for is to appeal to people that are as of yet either undecided or don't have a lot invested in their position, turn the herd, and hope as many of the rest follow as possible.

Re:"Duh" Studies (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313902)

So, they tend to believe that those choices are still correct even in the face of contradictory evidence.

The political system of the United States has become dependent on this simple fact.

Despite the fact that most people are unhappy with the direction of the country, voters are likely to vote next time the same way they voted last time, and based on the same issues. They will continue to get their information regarding current affairs from the same sources, too. They will vote the way those sources tell them, and then be completely unhappy with the results. And they'll do it again, and again, and again.

And the message of the media? "You are right and everyone else is wrong", resulting in the belief that despite our noble behavior and wise judgements, it's those other guys that are screwing everything up.

"Oh, and don't forget to buy a gun because HERE THEY COME HERE THEY COME HERE THEY COME!!!"

It works out just about the way you'd expect it to work out.

Re:"Duh" Studies (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313108)

And peer-reviewed reviews of peer reviews. Inception: the scientific version.

Re:"Duh" Studies (1)

jimpop (27817) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313212)

Often accomplished via public funds.

Re:"Duh" Studies (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313642)

As opposed to what? The private funds which are typically used to find a new drug with exactly the same efficacy as an old drug that the patent is going to expire on?

Re:"Duh" Studies (1)

jimpop (27817) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313692)

Wasted "Duh!" research in either publicly or privately funded efforts is bad, no?

Re:"Duh" Studies (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313752)

I'd argue that the wastes in private funding, to find drugs that have no benefit to the public, are more often just wastes, while the article points out several reasons why the "duh" studies using public funds are not as wasteful as you might think.

Re:"Duh" Studies (1)

jimpop (27817) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313812)

Waste is waste. In publicly funded research it is public money being wasted. I don't generally give a rats ass about waste in privately funded research if it's not my money being wasted. YMMV.

Because... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312910)

We have too much Duh the population.

Re:Because... (5, Insightful)

noname444 (1182107) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313238)

The "duh" in the population are those who believe that "duh" science is "duh" though. More often than not the outcome of a study is the expected results. When it's not, however, it challenges our preconceptions and we have to adjust to the new facts (or do another study ;).

Just because our intention tells us that something works a certain way it doesn't mean we can accept this as a scientific fact. This is a strength of the scientific method, rather than a weakness.

wait... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312924)

Smoking is bad for you??!?

Re:wait... (0)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312966)

The problem is that it's pretty well established that smoking is bad for you, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's bad for you in the way that people think. Which is one of the problems, often times conventional wisdom is correct. But sometimes it's not and other times the conventional wisdom is lacking the necessary information to deal with whatever.

Imagine trying to build a large castle in a swamp, which is precisely what happens when you don't do these sorts of duh studies. In the past it probably wasn't as prevalent, mostly because any science that you wanted to do was probably advanced enough to elicit more respect from the general population.

Re:wait... (1)

obarel (670863) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313106)

Yes, in the past people didn't build castle in swamps. That's why we can still visit castles from the 13th century.

I haven't seen a single castle built in the 21st century. Probably the result of this "Duh science". Back to the swamps, I say.

Re:wait... (2)

Altus (1034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313202)

Thats only because all the ones they built in the swamps sank.

Re:wait... (1)

obarel (670863) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313946)


Re:wait... (4, Funny)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313258)

Well, the third castle fell over, burned down, and sank into the swamp.

Its all the money... (0)

QuantumLeaper (607189) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312940)

Research is a money game, if your research is correct even if its stupid to most people, you will get a grant for the next project easier....

Re:Its all the money... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36313118)

Actually I think financially speaking it's more valuable to the legal system sorting out the factual (or otherwise) nature of platitudes.

Re:Its all the money... (1)

BergZ (1680594) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313934)

Well said, AC.
And it's not just the legal system that is interested in the results of common sense studies like: "alcohol increases reaction time" and "driving ability worsens in people with early Alzheimer's disease".
I bet that the insurance industry is very interested in asking followup questions like "how much does alcohol increase reaction time?" and "how much does Alzheimer's disease worsen driving ability?"

Re:Its all the money... (5, Funny)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313156)

Of course. Scientist are positively rolling in cash. That's after all the whole reason why they are doing science. They could do an honest job for less money and go into banking. But no, it is all about the grants.

Wait... what? (1)

definate (876684) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313300)

Wow, you read that with a lot of faulty inference. Nowhere the GP said nothing about how much money they've got, only that there are incentives for further research, and the grants you can attract, if you've a positive history.

Not sure how you came to what must have been your conclusion about what he said.

Re:Wait... what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36313384)

Wow, you read that with a lot of faulty inference. Nowhere the GP said nothing about how much money they've got, only that there are incentives for further research, and the grants you can attract, if you've a positive history. Not sure how you came to what must have been your conclusion about what he said.

Really? He started:

Its all the money...Research is a money game...

When I read that, I see the implication is it's all about getting more money. Which is silly to anyone working in research, because the best money is to leave. The people I know are there to do science. No "money game" involved.

Re:Wait... what? (3, Interesting)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313402)

Probably by too many posts here lately that stated that scientist would fake anything just to keep the funding up - see the climate discussions. The "they do it all for the funding" - meme is an insult to every scientist in my opinion. Not sure about the OP - my sarcasm detector might need recalibration, I grant you that.

Re:Wait... what? (1)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313594)

Not sure about the OP - my sarcasm detector might need recalibration, I grant you that.

Yeah, when he said banking? That sent off my sarc detector.

So, to the immediate reply to his post, I say... whoosh!


Re:Its all the money... (1)

CaptainLard (1902452) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313490)

But why would you want to? If you have to spend all your time doing easy stupid projects instead of what you really spent 10 years getting your PhD for then whats the point?

It's Wikipedias fault (2)

JReykdal (637757) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312948)

And its [Citation Needed].

Re:It's Wikipedias fault (2)

JordanL (886154) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313342)

Todays XKCD is strikingly relevant.

Re:It's Wikipedias fault (3, Informative)

sconeu (64226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313916)

And for those reading in the far future: Today's XKCD [xkcd.com] .

Talked about this a lot in school (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312954)

My undergrad is in psychology and I helped professors with research many time. One issue is what qualifies as "Duh" or "Everyone knows that".

For example, studies have been done that show a group of people working together on a project instead of having one person in charge can make it better. "Duh" you say? Kinda like Open Source? Well studies have also shown having one person in power calling the shots can make, think Apple and Steve Jobs. Also a "Duh" you say

They are both valid.

Also I don't have the article handy but many things people think of as "Duh" turn out not to be true.

Re:Talked about this a lot in school (1)

metalmaster (1005171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313328)

That's not cut and dry though because it depends on the personalities of people within the group.

If you have a bunch of motivated and intelligent people, each can voice his or her opinion on what they can bring to the table to get the project done. Another situation with a mixed bag of motivation and lazy would net you a few people(or maybe one) taking on leadership roles. A third group consists of a bunch of lazy morons, so no work gets done at all.


Re:Talked about this a lot in school (1)

metalmaster (1005171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313426)

forgot to say....the appropriate study would be to contrast the effectiveness of such group dynamics

You must test the obvious (5, Insightful)

rgmoore (133276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312960)

The biggest reason to run "duh" studies is because you really do have to test the obvious. If you assume something is true without testing it, any theory you build on that assumption is on shaky ground. Showing that your basic assumptions is correct is a vital step before you can do anything more complicate.

Re:You must test the obvious (5, Insightful)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313122)

Well, I guess that touches one of the main misconceptions when it comes to interpretation of scientific work. "Common sense" is not a scientific argument. It lacks rigor. And more often than not, common sense is just plain wrong.

Re:You must test the obvious (3, Funny)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313882)

And more often than not, common sense is just plain wrong.

Have you done a study or is that just common sense?

Re:You must test the obvious (1)

dev.null.matt (2020578) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313136)

From TFA:

Common knowledge once held that meat spontaneously generated maggots. Then, in 1668, Italian physician Francesco Redi devised a set of investigative steps-what we now call an experiment-to prove wrong what everybody thought they knew.


Re:You must test the obvious (1)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313226)

I do something similar when I'm trying to track down a bug in software. I'll check things that I don't actually think are part of the problem but I want to verify they behave the way I think they do before I move on to something that relies on that behavior.

Re:You must test the obvious (1)

rasmusbr (2186518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313326)

You'd think so with your sig.

Occam's razor is king in engineering too. If something doesn't work, check things in order of how complicated the failure mode would have to be, or how many unknowns would have to align for the failure mode to happen. Adjust for how long it would take to check for each error. (Looking for the car keys under the street lamp is a good start if there's a chance they landed there.)

Re:You must test the obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36313952)

And you have to publish something in order to maintain funding.

Hey guys this is what you call the result of research funding through performance based on business/political metrics.

Ha, there some research discoveries for ya.

At least for smoking (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312968)

you need to be constantly reminded of the facts because cigarette companies will start lying about it first chance they get. Google for 'T Zone'.

Or, as I once read, Common sense isn't.

And for global warming too (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313274)

you need to be constantly reminded of the facts because cigarette companies will start lying about it first chance they get. Google for 'T Zone'.

Oil companies do the same for anthropocentric global warming.

Here's a suggestion for another "duh" research: when big business fear a drop in profits, they spread lies. Google for 'fear uncertainty doubt'

Re:At least for smoking (1)

JordanL (886154) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313390)

As far as smoking goes, I agree to a surprising degree with the South Park episode "Butt Out". The medical problems associated with smoking are real, but that tells us nothing about the relative cost-benefit of an action, or about the effort spent by society to propagate the idea.

Re:At least for smoking (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36313732)

I agree. Also, most of the studies are utterly redundant. EVERYONE knows smoking is bad for their health. But, since people choose to do it anyway because of the short term benefits, the researchers (and society as a whole, it sometimes seems) just assumes that these people don't know its bad for them, i.e. they're idiots. In fact, this cultural attitude is a part (a small one, granted) of the reason I do smoke. I'm not exactly a rebellious person, but its kinda fun to give a giant "F*** you" to our culture. I suspect this is what the summary means by D.A.R.E. leading to more drugs as well.

Perceptions are important too (4, Interesting)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312976)

Sometimes that can be useful to have a huge mass of data to fall back on. When some study comes out that says something unexpected, then you have a bunch of data to act as a buffer so that people have some context, because most people think the truth is the whatever study the media misrepresented last, not the body of evidence as a whole. The more info you've got, the harder it is to deny something when its convenient. It might be a waste of time if people were rational creatures, but if something is being done to add to a body of evidence that people are still questioning, then maybe it isn't such a waste after all. And I suppose having some study to back your case if you want to make a policy change or legal claim too, rather than just rely on what should be common sense, for example, saying that studies show tired people preform poorly is better than just saying that you're tired and have a hard time working when you're tired.

The world is round (2)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312978)

Re:The world is round (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313280)

no it's not (p<0.05)

D.A.R.E. (2, Interesting)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312982)

i had no idea about drugs until an officer came to my class, opened up a couple briefcases, and showed me every drug imaginable so i could recognize it. then he told me all kinds of cool ways that the drugs would make me feel like and act like. most important lesson from D.A.R.E. is:

D. rugs
A. re
R. eally
E. xpensive

Re:D.A.R.E. (1)

Colourspace (563895) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313454)

D. rugs A. re R. eally E. xcellent. FTFY.

Sounds like agenda-driven science (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312984)

"they have to prove the obvious again and again to influence perceptions and policy. "

They aren't doing science looking to further scientific knowledge, they're doing science in order to influence policy. Immediately, their entire body of work becomes suspect.

Re:Sounds like agenda-driven science (0)

PraiseBob (1923958) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313306)

Yes, clearly those scientists that had to repeatedly prove smoking is unhealthy were acting on a liberal agenda. I've learned from Fox News that scientists only care about political agendas, not about promoting a better society or the common welfare of people.

Re:Sounds like agenda-driven science (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313396)

Scientific knowledge should influence policy.

Are you suggesting we should just assume vaccines cause autism? Should research be ignored and vaccines stopped?

Denying science to set policy make mes suspicious of you.

Re:Sounds like agenda-driven science (0)

godrik (1287354) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313734)

that's what you do in health science. You try to show what is good (read: healthy) and what is not so that (read: dangerous) so that what is good is pushed forward and what is not is forbidden.

What would be the point of discovering something is a poison if no one acts on that knowledge ?

Re:Sounds like agenda-driven science (1)

dwandy (907337) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313864)

I'm less concerned with the agenda than I am that the entire study be open. Including the raw data, methodology etc. In this way, if they try and misinterpret the results others can peer review and point out the flaws. At this point it doesn't matter as much if they had an agenda: either their 'agenda' happens to be beneficial, or they can't back their nefarious agenda.

Sometimes it's a numbers game (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312986)

If one schmoe's study says that drinking antifreeze will kill you, the Antifreeze For Children's Mopeds lobby will counter with their own study saying it's as safe as milk. Sometimes you need more studies from different angles/people to sink home the facts. How long did it take for people to accept cigarettes as a carcinogen? It was before my time, but I've recently seen some of the Congressional testimony from Tobacco execs and the shameless lying (seed of doubt!) is draw dropping in a modern context.

Re:Sometimes it's a numbers game (1)

obarel (670863) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313132)

"Antifreeze For Children's Mopeds lobby"?!

That's my LMAO of the day.

Re:Sometimes it's a numbers game (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313294)

The reason for that is that the tobacco execs are funding the people investigating them, so the people investigating them never drop the Perjury bomb.

Because real science is quantitative... (5, Insightful)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312996)

Real science is quantitative analysis of, for example, exactly how much worse drivers get with age. The specific mechanics of what things they get worse at, etc.

The media takes that, and takes the conclusion: they get worse with age/disease, and leave out the details. The details are for, well, people who actually build cars, or systems or the like. The researcher usually isn't trying to prove a 'duh' point, they're trying to quantify a 'duh' point.

Beautiful women are distracting. Ok. By how much? How do you quantify that? How do you study that? If the presence of beautiful women reduce men's productivity by 0.5% that's very different than 25% - the trend, and effect, may be the same (assuming you can quantify to that scale) to the media. But one is good science, one isn't (and no, you can't even express good science in 2 sentences).

What I tell you 3 times is true ... (4, Informative)

quietwalker (969769) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313010)

Sometimes you need to state the obvious over and over again because it doesn't take much for a person to internalize a viewpoint that makes the obvious non-obvious. Like Lewis Caroll pointed out, 3 times seems to be enough.

As simple examples, Snopes take on aspartame causing cancer & tumors [snopes.com] and as an ant poison [snopes.com] The FDA still ends up being inundated with this claim so many times a year that they end up retesting, just to humor the population.

As a more loaded example, check out the belief systems of anyone who claims they are strongly religious. Or Truthers. Or Birthers.

Sadly, it appears that the majority of the population needs to be told what is obvious over and over.

Re:What I tell you 3 times is true ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36313322)

With the advent of having to re-record known or accepted data, theories , discoveries, technology, physics etc into every computer on the planet into every university, laboratory, government, military complex, etc.. much was revisited. Incredible amounts of data were re-tested. Billions of dollars in grants and investments were re-devoted to applying further tests, applying new technologies to old methods, for every possible quark of info developed again in an emergingly more threatening, competitive world. Any possibility for further advancement that will give one government, one corporation, one people an edge will soon be completely exhausted. ~Knowledge would increase. We are in that place in history now.

Re:What I tell you 3 times is true ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36313484)

Or that the last 10 years of climate data hasn't shown an increase in temperature, yet the liberals still claim otherwise.
"Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
A: Yes, ..."
From the TOP climate researcher in the world.

Oh, you only wanted to bash what you thought were conservatives and didn't expect liberal bashing in return with ACTUAL scientific evidence. My bad. Perhaps if you want to sound not like a political hack you should educate yourself before posting your bigoted opinions.

Re:What I tell you 3 times is true ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36313636)

How exactly are Truthers conservatives?

Re:What I tell you 3 times is true ... (2)

carlzetie (1589423) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313670)

Really? You repeated the most frequently debunked and refuted out-of-context deliberately misleading piece of crap known to climate science, DELIBERATELY ELIDED THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE ANSWER and actually acted like you were posting something worthwhile? You actually claimed that your link PROVES that climate science is a liberal plot, but somehow everybody but a select few brilliant conservatives have noticed this piece of evidence that the liberal conspirators have hidden in plain sight on one of the most-visited websites in the world?

Here's the actual answer, including the critical words that you DELIBERATELY OMITTED:

"Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

Hmmm, when you see it in full, it doesn't actually support your claim at all, does it? And the rest of the interview at that link also completely contradicts what you dishonestly claim it implies.

I can't decide from your one anonymous post whether you are willfully dishonest in your posting above, or merely so stupid that you failed to read or understand anything beyond the word "yes".

And then you have the effrontery to call other people "political hack" and "bigoted"?

Re:What I tell you 3 times is true ... (1)

FlavaFlavivirus (2021178) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313800)

Oh, so we get to decide the significance after we collect the data. Let me just submit a paper with "trust me, it's significant" in the discussion and see what happens.

Re:What I tell you 3 times is true ... (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313680)

There was a article over at arstechnica.com that mentioned people would continue to believe what they where first told, even when presented with evidence of the contrary. Sadly i can not find the url for the article right now.

It's Duh either way. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36313026)

I took Psychology at University, where it seems they were particularly sensitive to the accusation. My instructor read a series of twenty-five research results that should have been obvious before experimenting. Many of them did seem obvious. Then she stated that she had just lied to us. All twenty-five experiments actually found the opposite. Then she read them with the true results, and, surely enough, they did sound obvious that way as well.

In fact, about six to eight did sound dodgy the first way, but that still left far too many.


"Smoking is bad for you" seems like a bad example (5, Insightful)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313036)

From TFA:

'Think about the number of studies that had to be published for people to realize smoking is bad for you,' says Ronald J. Iannotti, a psychologist at the National Institutes of Health. 'There are some subjects where it seems you can never publish enough.'

This seems like a bad example, because it's not really "duh science" when you have an entire industry using its combined resources to silence your research. The tobacco industry spent decades flooding the journals with studies aimed at proving that smoking was harmless, or even beneficial. What's more, the tobacco industry was uniquely situated to get those results repeated in the press, while the studies that repeated the finding that smoking was harmful ended up sounding like "duh science" and went unreported. (If smoking is still bad for you, it's not news.)

In many cases, the real problem is not the science, or the journals, but how to communicate the science to the lay public, who can only really comprehend what's actually told to them. If you can't guarantee that anybody will ever hear about your findings, the only way might be to repeat them over and over, as many times as you can -- because that's what industry will do.

Re:"Smoking is bad for you" seems like a bad examp (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313318)

In many cases, the real problem is not the science, or the journals, but how to communicate the science to the lay public, who can only really comprehend what's actually told to them.

You're seriously claiming that the 'lay public' didn't realise that the 'coffin nails' they were smoking might be bad for their health until scientists told them they were?

Re:"Smoking is bad for you" seems like a bad examp (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313434)

You're seriously claiming that the 'lay public' didn't realise that the 'coffin nails' they were smoking might be bad for their health until scientists told them they were?

No, I'm claiming that when people who had been told smoking was bad for them saw stories that had scientists claiming it really wasn't, many of them said, "Oh, that's a relief, then." Similarly, is there anybody on the planet who doesn't know what Coca-Cola is? Not really... and yet Coca-Cola keeps advertising.

Re:"Smoking is bad for you" seems like a bad examp (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313830)

See Ayn Rand as a prime example for a person who didn't believe into the scientific studies until she developed cancer from too much smoking.

Re:"Smoking is bad for you" seems like a bad examp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36313524)

You do know that the exact same scientists that the Tobacco Institute hired to prove smoking was good for you are now working to discredit the science of pollution control, right?

They call it "Global Warming" instead of "pollution" now, and they've already managed to convince nearly two-thirds of the US population that environmentalism is evil and bad for business (it's actually incredibly good for business, of course, just bad for oil companies).

You can pretty much assume anything Fred Singer is involved in is pure politics, and has nothing to do with science. But he's the Wall Street Journal's favorite scientist, and no stranger to the pages of the New York Times, either! He's far more influential in the White House than any real scientist will ever be.

And to prove the point (1)

hilldog (656513) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313038)

An article right under that one is..... "Women who post lots of photos of themselves on Facebook value appearance, need attention, study finds"

Duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36313044)

If we don't check the things we think we know, we won't find the cases where we're wrong. Of course we're generally right, and thus the propensity of "duh" studies. But those aren't the interesting ones. It's the ones that the findings are counter to what would be "duh" that are interesting. And you're not going to find the latter without wading through the former.

Most "Duh" Research Isn't "Duh". (5, Insightful)

Geurilla (759701) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313046)

Most "Duh" research isn't "Duh" at all. It only sounds that way because of the atrocious state of science reporting in the popular press. Challenging, technical research has to be translated into terms regular folks can understand, and that often means making ridiculous comparisons or analogies, or just giving an explanation of the research so dumbed down that the researchers themselves would hardly recognize it.

Another contributing factor is the political motivations of people with large audiences who don't know better. For example, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) released a "report" [senate.gov] making fun of a number of studies supposedly representing wasting spending on stupid research. It turns out his examples [livescience.com] are actually pretty nuanced and important after all--hardly "duh" science.

The general population just isn't equipped to judge which research is important and worth spending money on. That is exactly why we have organizations like the NSF to evaluate grant proposals for us.

Why do Duh research? (2)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313090)

The reason people do "Well, duh!" research is because of how interesting it is when the "Duh!" is wrong. Such as the research into DARE, or similar research showing the ineffectiveness of 12-step programs, or diets, or that losing weight doesn't increase your lifespan (although gaining it decreases it), or that modest alcohol consumption can have positive health effects, or...

I mean, how interesting would it be if...

Driving ability improved in people with early Alzheimer's disease.
Or if women who get epidurals experienced more pain during childbirth than women who didn't.
Or if young men who are obese have the higher odds of getting married than thinner peers.
Or if trying to "make exercise more fun" lowers fitness rates among teens.

As far as DARE goes (2)

wolfemi1 (765089) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313124)

I can say that I'm not surprised by the positive correlation with drug use. I personally caught the DARE officer in lies about the side effects of drugs, and all it really taught me was that police hold youth in enough contempt to lie to them "for their own good." That's really not a great thing to teach students.

Re:As far as DARE goes (3, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313270)

Police lie to everyone, not just youth.

Re:As far as DARE goes (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313748)

If only I had mod points, that deserves an insightful.

Yeah, DARE is hardly a "duh" (1)

Radical Moderate (563286) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313474)

Given the the total failure of the War On Drugs, why would anyone assume that any component of it, including DARE, is a success?

Re:Yeah, DARE is hardly a "duh" (1)

dynamo (6127) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313652)

If they have gotten rich because of it, that's the only rational reason to consider DARE a success. Maybe the people who made DARE are less stupid than it seems, and it was an undercover thing to get people to do more drugs - by insulting their intelligence and then telling them not to. More drug use, more prisoners, more cops / guards, ... $$$. I don't think it was really a conspiracy, but mostly because people intelligent enough to think of that would have made better ads.

It's a defense mechanism (2)

NoSig (1919688) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313160)

We humans like to pretend that our assumptions are facts. So when our assumptions come closer to actually really being facts, we have to say that that is a worthless endeavor because otherwise our pretense would be disrupted. It is much nicer to feel superior to those stupid scientists than it is to realize how little we really know.

Granting bodies & short term thinking (2)

DrNico (691592) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313182)

The more likely explanation is granting bodies. To apply for substantial funding you need to have a project that has clearly defined outcomes that have a high probability for success. The kind of project that has these properties is "the obvious". The short term is very important too. You need to have something you can publish and report in the first year of publication to ensure the grant bodies stay happy and don't become concerned they have wasted their money, again "the obvious" is a good one. Long term or speculative research is strongly discouraged by the current system and interests of granting bodies world-wide. It is almost inevitable that this happen as the granting bodies want something to report to government (in the short term) to show what a good job they are doing. It's a shame as much better research could be done if it were not for having to think in such short and clearly defined time frames.

Re:Granting bodies & short term thinking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36313244)

Agreed, too much short term thinking in the US at the moment.

Hallucinogens (1)

FreakyGeeky (23009) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313302)

I can credit DARE as the number one reason I took LSD for the first time. I wasn't really aware of hallucinogens prior to DARE and the whole "Just Say No" campaign. I found the idea of having a dream-like state while awake to be fascinating. It seemed like magic, and I couldn't wait to get my hands on some LSD or shrooms. It took me a few years (until my freshman year of high school), but I took acid as early as I was able to find it. I must say, DARE didn't disappoint at all!

Re:Hallucinogens (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36313592)

I love acid. Can't seem to get it now, too many synthetics around.

Re:Hallucinogens (1)

Ellis D. Tripp (755736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313878)

LSD is also synthetic, as in not naturally-occurring.

Knee surgery doesn't work (2)

porges (58715) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313324)

For instance: arthroscopic knee surgery, a very common procedure, doesn't actually help. [washingtonpost.com] . If you were afraid of "duh" research, you'd never ask that question in the first place.

DUH for the masses - are you a mass? (5, Insightful)

John Da' Baddest (1686670) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313338)

It's obvious the Earth is flat, why waste Isabell's gold "proving" someone can sail West and end up back home from the East? Duh.

It's obvious that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, that guy in Pisa must be pulling a political stunt to get tax credits or something. Duh.

It's obvious that Saddam has secret nukes, who needs UN institutional opinions? Duh.

It's obvious that taxes cause job losses, cell phones cause cancer, and the world ended two Saturdays ago except for you heathen boogers, and everything worth inventing was already discovered years ago. Let's close the patent office. Duh.

Cross-discipline value judgements are a slippery slope. Science is not Technology, and we techies look pretty ridiculous by other people's criteria if you haven't noticed already.

"News for Nerds" indeed.

Re:DUH for the masses - are you a mass? (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313500)

It's obvious the Earth is flat, why waste Isabell's gold "proving" someone can sail West and end up back home from the East? Duh.

That did not fucking happen!
We have known the earth was round since the Greeks. The argument was over the distance. Simple math shows that Columbus would have starved before making it to India. He got lucky that the Americas were in his way. He was a bigger fool than you are being.

Out Demons of Stupidity and Ignorance, OUT! rAmen
Educate thyself!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#Geographical_considerations [wikipedia.org]

Normal Science (1)

El Kevbo (81125) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313340)

This is very much in line with "normal science" as described in Kuhn's classic book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Most of science is "filling in the holes" of widely-accepted theories and ideas. Because it's not paradigm-shifting, it seems obvious that much normal science can be interpreted as "duh science." It's inherent in the way that science and discovery work.

Well, duh. (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313370)

Sadly, the summary pretty much contains the entire TFA... All the links are nothing but the submitter's editorial commentary with sketchy connections to TFA at best.
But there's another reason for 'duh!' science that he misses - quantification. Yeah, it's 'duh!' that driving ability worsens in the early stages of Alzheimer's. But can it be used as a diagnostic tool? Can the nature of the decrease (decreased cognition? slowed reflexes?) lead to further studies of what parts of the brain are affected and how and in what order? Etc... etc... But you don't even know to look for those things until you have the evidence that correlation exists in the first place.
Science isn't just about the Eureka!. It's also about the slow podding duh! that builds the foundation.

That is because they were lying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36313438)

"in which police warn kids about the dangers of drug use â" as an article of faith,' writes Brown. 'But Dennis Rosenbaum of the University of Illinois at Chicago and other researchers have shown that the program has been ineffective and may even increase drug use in some cases.'"

That is because the "warning" given were utter crap. Some drug like marijeanne were painted as black , dark, and bad as , heroine or crack. Kids are not idiot. Especially when they can nowaday read article on the net on the effect of MJ.

this story is a duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36313554)

/. is just as guilty as the duh studies, and TFA

Not that surprising... (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313726)

"Many have taken the value of popular programs like DARE — in which police warn kids about the dangers of drug use — as an article of faith,' writes Brown. 'But Dennis Rosenbaum of the University of Illinois at Chicago and other researchers have shown that the program has been ineffective and may even increase drug use in some cases"

Anyone who has actually sat through one of these would not be surprised that they increase drug use.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?