Odd Science

Something more today about those "studies we are supposed to blindly accept and cheer.... From the "How to justify an expensive study" department comes this story that I saw on the BBC.com site the other day about a Peruvian frog species. Here's what the site reported. "Genetic tests have revealed that male and females of one species of Peruvian poison frog remain utterly faithful.

More surprising is the discovery that just one thing - the size of the pools of water in which they lay their tadpoles - prevents the frogs straying.That constitutes the best evidence yet documented that monogamy can have a single cause, say scientists."Haha What a shocking conclusion. Maybe they should conduct a multi-million dollar study to se that when a killer is locked in prison he can't kill again..proof that a single cause stops murderous convicts from killing. I doubt anyone will accept the Peruvian frog conclusion is significant, but then, most of the world believes in the pseudo science of the global warmers.

I wonder how the idea of water contained monogamous Peruvian frogs relates to say.....Tiger Woods cheating on his wife. Maybe the wife should put Tiger in the middle of an isolated island between Tiger's golf outings. But then, Tiger isn't a frog. He's a "horny " human male.
(Hornclubbed Tigerhumanis). I am sure some scientist will get a grant to study Tigerhumais too, especially if he or she says the planet will be threatened if money isn't given for such a study.

All this begs a question. Though it is important to study Peruvian or even my local frogs, might not a more relevant study be a better one to undertake, one that gives us something of use when the study is concluded? Do you also notice that allot of speculation is being injected into what was formerly called "science"? It used to be that a hypothesis was tested and was never promoted as valid until empirical evidence showed to to be. Not it's the reverse. I am certain that isn't science. Rather, it's an agenda.

But now, particularly in the environmental fields of study, the hypothesis is immediately accepted as truth and one is asked to disprove what is being hypothesized, a convoluted premise. This absence of the scientific method as the model is curious, unless the one practicing it is trying to promote some cause for a gain (perhaps monetary or to gain or enhance notoriety) perceived to be obtained more easily by the use of untested hypothesis as fact.

Mass communication today makes this trend much easier than one would ordinarily think possible to achieve. Theories like Global Warming are promoted and subtle implications that they are based on fact rather than theory are implied. The public accepts what "the experts say is true', never searching for factual validity or denial of the same.

Sigh... it's so complicated these days that sometimes I wish I were one of those Peruvian frogs.