3 of 7
3
Research Into The Weird, Pointless, And Just Plain Silly
Posted: 15 July 2011 06:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07
dougsmith - 15 July 2011 06:03 AM

BTW if you haven’t heard of Dr. Yoshiro Nakamats, he alone is worth a glance ... see the wiki page. I recall hearing somewhere that one of his supposed patents was for his own name. (Which he actually spells NakaMats).

He has a million dollar bathroom? He’s doing something right. There is no mention of his education…

 Signature 

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2011 05:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  338
Joined  2011-01-17
Occam. - 04 July 2011 12:11 PM

OK, I’ll make a hypothesis:  Feet larger than size five are correlated with masculinity, and as such, not as attractive to most males.  Feet smaller than size five are correlated with immaturity and also not as attractive to most males.

Of course, foot size of an adult woman doesn’t really correlate with these, but it seems possible that males would subconsciously see a connection.

Occam

to correct typo

Maybe it also has to do with the young age of brides, historically and in other cultures. Mind you, I’m not advocating it, but if brides are 12, then their feet will be smaller.

C

 Signature 

“You can tell me that it’s gospel but I know that it’s only church.”

Tom Waits

“I take a simple view of life. It is keep your eyes open and get on with it.”

Laurence Sterne

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2011 06:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3063
Joined  2010-04-26
Chris Crawford - 14 July 2011 07:00 PM

You guys are right, I *am* being a bit of a stuffed shirt here. Science certainly can afford having some fun poked at it. My concern is when the laughter turns into sneers.

Nah, I love science!  It gave me video games, popsicles, and those little funny shaped dice I like.

But some science deserves sneers.  Like those douches trying to find a ‘cure’ for homosexuality or Dr NakaMats.  He’s crazy.  (Thanks, Doug.)

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2011 07:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6175
Joined  2009-02-26
Bees Mom - 15 July 2011 05:21 PM
Occam. - 04 July 2011 12:11 PM

OK, I’ll make a hypothesis:  Feet larger than size five are correlated with masculinity, and as such, not as attractive to most males.  Feet smaller than size five are correlated with immaturity and also not as attractive to most males.

Of course, foot size of an adult woman doesn’t really correlate with these, but it seems possible that males would subconsciously see a connection.

Occam

to correct typo

Maybe it also has to do with the young age of brides, historically and in other cultures. Mind you, I’m not advocating it, but if brides are 12, then their feet will be smaller.

C

I think it has more to do with the entire shape of the leg. The natural V of the legs leading to procreation in a pleasingly undulating fashion is much like the petals of a flower. The feet just need to be proportionally pleasing to the ankle, the calf, the knee, the thigh….the recognition of perfection in legs is a powerful incentive for selecting a mate. As is a robust symmetrical male physique pleasing and attractive to women.
A tall woman with very little feet would be proportionally off.  A petit woman with large feet would be proportionally off. As are beer bellied men a little off…. cheese

Movie stars insure their legs from toe to thigh.

[ Edited: 17 July 2011 07:47 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2011 07:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

But some science deserves sneers.  Like those douches trying to find a ‘cure’ for homosexuality or Dr NakaMats.  He’s crazy.

Are those douches really scientists? Do they have doctorates in their field of work? Do they work at a reputable scientific institution? Have they published papers in reputable scientific journals? If not, then they don’t deserve to be called scientists and their example should not be used to smear real scientists.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2011 07:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3063
Joined  2010-04-26
Chris Crawford - 17 July 2011 07:34 AM

Are those douches really scientists? Do they have doctorates in their field of work? Do they work at a reputable scientific institution? Have they published papers in reputable scientific journals? If not, then they don’t deserve to be called scientists and their example should not be used to smear real scientists.

It doesn’t really matter, does it?  They’re out there, doing research, practicing science.  Whether you like it or think they’re ‘real scientists’ or not (which some of them probably are) has no real bearing.  And whether they (and others like them) smear ‘real scientists’ is all in the eye of the beholder.

EDIT
Fixed some errors.

[ Edited: 17 July 2011 07:39 AM by Dead Monky ]
 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2011 07:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6175
Joined  2009-02-26
Dead Monky - 17 July 2011 07:36 AM
Chris Crawford - 17 July 2011 07:34 AM

Are those douches really scientists? Do they have doctorates in their field of work? Do they work at a reputable scientific institution? Have they published papers in reputable scientific journals? If not, then they don’t deserve to be called scientists and their example should not be used to smear real scientists.

It doesn’t really matter, does it?  They’re out there, doing research, practicing science.  Whether you like it or think they’re ‘real scientists’ or not (which some of them probably are) has no real bearing.  And whether they (and others like them) smear ‘real scientists’ is all in the eye of the beholder.

EDIT
Fixed some errors.

I agree with DM,
Some of the most astounding inventions and discoveries have been made in very primitive circumstances.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2011 08:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

It doesn’t really matter, does it?  They’re out there, doing research, practicing science.  Whether you like it or think they’re ‘real scientists’ or not (which some of them probably are) has no real bearing.  And whether they (and others like them) smear ‘real scientists’ is all in the eye of the beholder.

There are “real doctors” out there practicing medicine who have all sorts of cures involving strange and rare potions. Snake oil, for example. None of these have been approved by the FDA, of course, but that shouldn’t matter, should it? After all, being “reputable” is in your view irrelevant; they’re “doing research, practicing science”, to use your words. Would you dismiss medical science as quackery because their stuff sometimes kills people?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2011 08:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14

Chris, I don’t think anyone is dismissing science as silly on the basis of someone like Dr. NakaMats, even though he apparently does have several inventions under his own name. He’s basically a crank, like Pons and Fleischmann with their cold fusion.

Surely we can laugh at the silly and crankish without thereby implicitly denigrating the good.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2011 09:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3063
Joined  2010-04-26

You miss my point, Chris.  I’m not saying being reputable is irrelevant, merely irrelevant as to whether or not someone is doing research or making with the science.  Science is not something exclusive to stuffy old men with lab coats and PhDs.  As Write said, anyone can do it.  Whether they do it well or for reputable purposes…...that’s another matter.

Also, why do you assume that I’m dismissing anything?  I created this thread to have a good natured laugh at some of the weirder, goofier things conducted under the aegis of Science.  And to have the occasional laugh at some of the more pointless stuff like that Mozart ‘research’.

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2011 06:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

OK, Dead Monky, perhaps you need only to tighten up your definitions. Don’t use a generalized term like “science” or “scientists”. Instead, refer explicitly to the people whose work you cite. Talk about Dr. NakaMats, and how silly and pointless his stuff is. Don’t say, “Dr. NakaMats did this dumb thing, therefore I’ll generalize and say that scientists do dumb things.” Say precisely what you mean. Right now, the sense I get of your comments is rather like this: “Here’s a black guy who committed rape. Black guys are rapists.” Better to say “Mr. James Richard Person committed rape. Mr. Person is a rapist.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2011 11:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6175
Joined  2009-02-26

Belatedly,

foot fetish = worshipping at the steps of the temple

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 July 2011 10:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3063
Joined  2010-04-26
Chris Crawford - 17 July 2011 06:02 PM

OK, Dead Monky, perhaps you need only to tighten up your definitions. Don’t use a generalized term like “science” or “scientists”. Instead, refer explicitly to the people whose work you cite. Talk about Dr. NakaMats, and how silly and pointless his stuff is. Don’t say, “Dr. NakaMats did this dumb thing, therefore I’ll generalize and say that scientists do dumb things.” Say precisely what you mean. Right now, the sense I get of your comments is rather like this: “Here’s a black guy who committed rape. Black guys are rapists.” Better to say “Mr. James Richard Person committed rape. Mr. Person is a rapist.”

I’m getting tired of this.  I’ve made no such generalizations and you damn well know it.  Or, apparently, you don’t.  Look, I’m sorry if you’re not getting the point or grasping what’s been written, but it seems to be a personal problem.  I’m not repeating myself anymore and don’t know what else I can add.  The only words of advice I can give are: lighten up a little.

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 July 2011 10:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

Well, I do “damn well know” that you wrote 24 hours ago:

I created this thread to have a good natured laugh at some of the weirder, goofier things conducted under the aegis of Science.

and, unless you don’t have a good grasp of the precise meaning of “aegis”, that sentence constitutes a pretty generalized denigration of science.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 July 2011 11:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14

Chris, I’d relax a little about this. I think it’s a fun thread, “good natured” as DM says. Science is big enough to survive some good natured ribbing at the expense of its goofier side. And yes, even great subjects have their goofier sides. It can be beneficial to be able to laugh at oneself and one’s cherished subjects, and take oneself less seriously at times, since it’s a corrective against pomposity.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 7
3