Links 7/27/14

Links for you. Science:

Sixth-Grader May Have Stolen Marine Biologist’s Lionfish Research (actually, the father; she might not have known)
How long was the average Roman foot, and what was their shoe size?
Bayesianism — a dangerous religion that harms science
Sequenced in the U.S.A.: A Desperate Town Hands Over Its DNA
Conducting a Microbiome Study

Other:

Affordable Chaos
ISIS Torches 1800-Year-Old Mosul Church After Expelling Christians
Yes, Robert E. Lee Supported Slavery, the Confederacy and Its Battle Flag
U.S. Officials: MH17 Missile May Have Been Launched By a “Defector from The Ukrainian Military Who Was Trained To Use Similar Missile Systems”
Do you believe Massachusetts tech is major league?
The most dangerous intersections in Washington
France’s Jews Flee As Rioters Burn Paris Shops, Attack Synagogue
An Open Letter to Boston’s Green B Line: Ode to the train of dissapointment
The VA scandal exposes the folly of metrics (wrote about similar healthcare problems here)
Cuomo’s Office Hobbled State Ethics Inquiries
Chilling Map Shows Boston With A 7.5-Foot Coastal Flood
Just when did America stop being America?

This entry was posted in Lotsa Links. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Links 7/27/14

  1. Bayesian Bouffant, FCD says:

    RE corporate rights: I have an idea about how to approach this. Corporations are being granted more and more of the rights normally reserved for biological persons; the right to exercise religious freedom, the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on political speech. And yet, these corporations are said to be “owned.” Clearly, this is a case of slavery. The corporations must be freed.

  2. Min says:

    Bayesianism, a religion? How about Fisherian statistics, an inversion of the scientific method? Raising doubts about a so-called null hypothesis and then claiming that your hypothesis, among others that were not tested, wins.

    Bayesian statistics has made a comeback. Get over it.

    FWIW, I think that we ask too much of statistics. We can measure the degree to which evidence agrees with or disagrees with a hypothesis. We can, without doing anything controversial, compare how well evidence supports one hypothesis over another. And that is good enough, IMO

Comments are closed.