Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Extremely Moronic Article

Now that the courts in America have saved religion from science, I think it's about time someone saved us from the scientists. Last week I read an article which was talking about research that showed that obesity was more common in poor areas, one of the scientists was quoting as saying that this showed that there was a link between where you lived and your socio-economic status.

I'm not a scientist, but maybe, just maybe, that's because poor people tend to live places where rent is cheap. I lost the article, so I couldn't rant about it last week. But luckily this week we've got just as assinine conclusions drawn from scientific research.

Apparently research in Britain and Germany has shown that the more daughters a man has the more likely he is to vote left (well Labour and Liberal Democrat, although that's the least of the problems). The Times wrote an article on this research that was both ridiculous and offensive (they start off by saying that feminists will be extremely upset and offended by this research, and then quote unnamed feminists to back up this theory).

I don't doubt the original research, as women are paid less and do more unpaid work, they're more likely to need the welfare state. But you know what, I don't think we need Darwin to explain this:

But we still need to explain why parents would vote for something that benefits their offspring rather than themselves. Here Professor Oswald invokes Darwinian theory, which is that people make decisions that are likely to beneift their children. When children prosper, their chances fo reproducing also flourish, and the genetic line is more likely to be continued
Yes, there was huge amounts of natural selection for voting habits.

Evolutionary Biologists make me want to throw in my lot with the creationists, who are at least honest about what they're doing. They don't try and hide their sexist bullshit behind anything but more sexist bullshit.

1 comment:

  1. To be fair, these stories sound more like the antics of social scientists, who are always reporting some correlation that is either self-evident or just as likely to be the result of random events or some combination of events that would be impossible to identify, as though they'd just found something significant. My wife's favourite response to these sort of "research" reports in the news is "Latest research shows breast cancer is highly correlated with skirt-wearing".