tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36939759.post6594132011690886510..comments2024-01-17T07:03:57.842+00:00Comments on The Mad Ranter: Etymology of hamster and how misinformation propagatesFlipChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09449939046593105926noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36939759.post-86429967170529535592012-02-27T16:09:01.768+00:002012-02-27T16:09:01.768+00:00But there's no real reason it has to be boring...But there's no real reason it has to be boring; even something simple as "Chinese whispers" demonstrates the importance of sourcing.<br /><br />Remember some time back when I recounted playing Hide and Seek with the Bratii and I introduced them to the concept of 'moving'? An examination of the implicit and explicit rules of a game and the assumptions therein.<br /><br />Of the 20% are idiots - no they didn't save any money, but they didn't lose any either and gained our great customer service :-)<br /><br />Reading the small print should be an educational lesson "72% of 283 people" seriously that's your basis for your advert! How were these people selected? What questions were posed to them? I mean "99% of respondents preferred our brand of cola over a glass of stagnant water. Now with added dihydrogen monoxide for improved hydration.FlipChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09449939046593105926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36939759.post-60932667225584010712012-02-27T15:15:53.748+00:002012-02-27T15:15:53.748+00:00Critical thinking has to be the most boring subjec...Critical thinking has to be <em>the</em> most boring subject imaginable! Even mathematics is fascinating by comparison. ;-)<br /><br />Not that I refute your actual assertion, of course…<br /><br />You know where else critical thinking would be useful? “80% of customers saved money by switching to us!” Otherwise known as “20% of our customers are idiots”.<br /><br />If more people understood that mashing sciency words into a shampoo advert <em>doesn't</em> actually mean it's better for you, maybe manufacturers would stop doing it.Orphihttp://blog.orphi.me.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36939759.post-28993391442684554862012-02-27T14:30:58.409+00:002012-02-27T14:30:58.409+00:00It really is a problem; that I won't deny.
I ...It really is a problem; that I won't deny.<br /><br />I mean peer-review? Heck I could start a 'scientific' journal on unicorn physiognomy and have all submitted papers forwarded and reviewed by unicorn specialists. Okay a little facetious, but this is the outcome of specialisation. Papers in a rarefied subject can only be critiqued by a small 'in-group' of experts and it can get a little incestuous.<br /><br />Citations? One lax researcher for a major publisher uses a 'fact' gleaned from the internet and in turn becomes the reference for said fact's veracity.<br /><br />To an extent the key is transparency and truly trusted sources - I trust the OED and Duden to have done the research even if I can't see their sources. <br /><br />In other case it is backtracking the references to see where they originate. In the case of hamster and hamstern no-one provided anything beyond the basic statement that this was true, which, in part, acted as the spur for me to dig deeper.<br /><br />As I've said elsewhere in the same vein - this is something that has to added to our educational curriculum.FlipChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09449939046593105926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36939759.post-31299640062067788592012-02-27T11:49:06.629+00:002012-02-27T11:49:06.629+00:00When I was at university, we had an hour class on ...When I was at university, we had an hour class on how to determine the veracity of a research source.<br /><br />Which is interesting, because I can't remember a single damned thing they said. The criteria were roughly “Is it published in a peer-reviewed journal? Does it cite a lot of references?”<br /><br />Kids presumably use the criteria “Is it in writing?” If yes, then it's accurate. Sounds laughable to you, but how many peer-reviewed journals have published stuff which is wildly inaccurate?Orphihttp://blog.orphi.me.uk/noreply@blogger.com