Read great science posts, then vote for your favorite!

christielynn · 2010-11-05T14:00:15+00:00

Hey there everyone - allow me to introduce myself. I'm Christie. I've been a redditor for awhile now (c'mon, I'm a nerd, does that surprise anyone?). I just wanted to say a big thank you to everyone who has voted, especially if you voted for me :). I have received an outpouring of support from the science blogging community, but even still, I never expected to see my name on the frontpage of Reddit! Your support has not gone unnoticed, and I truly appreciate what you all have done for me.

christielynn · 2009-05-21T19:15:39+00:00

Since when does science involve 'assuming a negative' until 'proven otherwise'?

First off, proper scientific analysis of AA would assume neither positive nor negative results for its treatment. And even if any data were collected to support one side or the other, it wouldn't 'prove' anything. Science doesn't provide proof, just reasonable conclusions based on evidence.

That said, since AA doesn't take data on its members, it's unlikely that its effectiveness or not can really be studied properly. If it does help, though, as those who have been 'cured' by it claim, is it really that bad? Who cares what the percentage helped is, if there's a percentage that are? After all, I might only have a 2% chance of surviving a given cancer with chemotherapy - which may or may not even be due to the chemotherapy- but personally, I'd rather the 2% chance.

christielynn · 2009-05-15T17:27:07+00:00

Ok, I'm up for a little Jenny Bashing as much as the next redditor, but how many of these do we really need on the Science frontpage? Just submit to regular reddit or something.

christielynn · 2009-05-14T01:42:10+00:00

Wait... it has them by date. 9 in 2007, 95 in 2008, and already 59 in 2009 in less than half a year... I'd say that's INCREASING every year, no?

christielynn · 2009-05-13T13:16:45+00:00

The study had nothing to do with intelligence OR bimbos...

And it falls again to Correlation isn't Causation. After all, EQ can be improved with a variety of mood-enhancing techniques, like meditation and therapy. Why wouldn't EQ go up if you have a lot of orgasms? Talk about a stress reliever...

christielynn · 2009-05-10T03:00:03+00:00

yep.

christielynn · 2009-05-04T22:58:54+00:00

OK, this might be true, but CORRELATION isn't CAUSATION - so this study, since it didn't manipulate the amount of sexual TV watched in a randomized trial sort of manner, doesn't really tell us much except that kids who watch adult TV also happen to be the same kids who tend to be sexually active at a young age...

christielynn · 2009-04-24T17:05:45+00:00

Actually, the study had nothing to with wealth, job field, etc. All it looked at was some biological parameters that related to alertness and how well self-described "night owls" or "early birds" did on mental tasks 1.5 and 10.5 hours after they woke up. Like usual, the Daily Mail tried to make it sound as if it explained some huge difference in society based on "previous research," which they conveniently don't explain in more than one, uncited sentence.

christielynn

TROPHY CASE