Interesting article in Science

[MamaRoo]

Quote:
Child abusers are human, but the study is about birds.


No. Here's the last paragraph:

Because the attacks by unrelated adults are similar to the sibling attacks, there may be a "maladaptive side effect" of something that makes evolutionary sense, says Scott Forbes, a biologist at the University of Winnipeg in Canada. Forbes agrees with Anderson that the boobies can provide a "useful model system" to study the causes of human child abuse. Others, however, are not yet convinced that the chick-abusing boobies and child-abusing humans are sufficiently similar to warrant using the birds as a model. "It is very interesting to see these intergenerational effects of early experience and hormones in an animal," says Dario Maestripieri, a behavioral biologist at the University of Chicago in Illinois. "But what happens in humans is pathological," he continues, "whereas the birds are programmed to attack each other as siblings," because the parents can handle only one.

One group thinks it could be used as a model, another group disagrees. Neither group has drawn any conclusions about human behavior from the bird observations. Considering something as a model is very different from using it as one.​

 

[faerielady]

Quote:
I remember once being taught that even though engineers may draw a design that is 100% perfect in theory, it doesn't necessarily happen in reality. Notice that test pilots make a LOT of money, and they are most definitely NOT the engineers that drew the design of the plane.

So, just because something failed in reality does not mean that it wasn't absolutely credible... in theory.

 

[scratch'n'peck]

I bet when the original poster shared an interesting study about the Blue Footed Boobie Bird he or she never thought that it would turn into a debate on science.

Quote:
Sorry, I was busy trying to fix my frost free hydrant yesterday afternoon.

In this case, what I had in mind was a research study testing the effectiveness of offering a parent coping methods class. (Yes, I know it has little to do with the Boobie bird study.) Even modest reductions in the incidence of child abuse could be beneficial. Of course that would not eliminate the need for the criminal justice system when child abuse does occur, but I don't view it as an all or nothing situation. In the case of dogs, the Humane Society could test the effectiveness of offering low cost dog obedience training classes.

It is fine if we don't agree that science can be a helpful tool in understanding human behavior. We are entitled to our own opinion.

I think we could agree on some things, like:


* "Boobie" is a very silly name for a bird.

* As you wrote in a previous post, "Loving one another makes a better human life also."

* Having birds around makes a better human life, too.

 

[chickened]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct

Happens alot, some reasons why people do it.

 

[chickened]

I do enjoy your post, it went where I least expected. Thanks

scratch'n'peck :

I bet when the original poster shared an interesting study about the Blue Footed Boobie Bird he or she never thought that it would turn into a debate on science.

Quote:
Sorry, I was busy trying to fix my frost free hydrant yesterday afternoon.

In this case, what I had in mind was a research study testing the effectiveness of offering a parent coping methods class. (Yes, I know it has little to do with the Boobie bird study.) Even modest reductions in the incidence of child abuse could be beneficial. Of course that would not eliminate the need for the criminal justice system when child abuse does occur, but I don't view it as an all or nothing situation. In the case of dogs, the Humane Society could test the effectiveness of offering low cost dog obedience training classes.

It is fine if we don't agree that science can be a helpful tool in understanding human behavior. We are entitled to our own opinion.

I think we could agree on some things, like:


* "Boobie" is a very silly name for a bird.

* As you wrote in a previous post, "Loving one another makes a better human life also."

* Having birds around makes a better human life, too.​

 

[Royd]

Quote:
It failed, after a huge influx of public money.....It's a flawed concept. No political spin needed. Hydroelectric works, solar doesn't.....At least, not on my dime. If some venture capitalist wants to front his money to someone in a garage, and he finds the holy grail of solar electric, then, I'll root for him.

I don't need to post links on the subject to win the argument.

But wait, that's still a business question, not a science one.

So, solar research and all other alternative energy concepts are not backed by scientific thinktanks and govt. grants?


Amazingly, hydrology has been a proven source of power, long before anyone decided to put the numbers to it, and call it a science.

 

[MamaRoo]

Quote:
But wait, that's still a business question, not a science one.

So, solar research and all other alternative energy concepts are not backed by scientific thinktanks and govt. grants?

I thought your point was about this single company that had a poor business model and failed.

 

[Royd]

Quote:
So, solar research and all other alternative energy concepts are not backed by scientific thinktanks and govt. grants?

I thought your point was about this single company that had a poor business model and failed.

They are failing, as a whole, across the country. Obviously, a very expensive boondoggle, in trying to change the energy concepts of this country.

 

[MamaRoo]

Quote:
I thought your point was about this single company that had a poor business model and failed.

They are failing, as a whole, across the country. Obviously, a very expensive boondoggle, in trying to change the energy concepts of this country.

Why are they failing? Is it poor science? Poor business model? A concept that society isn't ready for? Too expensive for current environment? There's too many unknowns for me to draw the conclusion that solar power, as a concept, is flawed.

 

[punk-a-doodle]

There in lies the debate relating to human behavior, the animal cannot speak its' point of view which if taken seriously in a study makes the study flawed when compared to human subjects

Aha! Science has just become much easier. We can just ask people "why do you act in a violent manner", and we will have an answer that is both infalliable and the pinacle of understanding how the mind and body works at the physiological level. All those wasted years... Why? Why!?

But again, having not read the original study, I doubt very much that its hypothesis or conclusion was "boobies are perfect models for child abuse". Some of you keep insisting that, and seemed to have skipped the part about pop-science. Studies just applying to group dynamics within species are vital to areas such as zoology alone.

I don't need to post links on the subject to win the argument.

I did not realize that discussions are something to 'win'. Who is funding the trophy for this? Do discussion tournaments count as a real job? Who will be shirts, and who will be skins?

* "Boobie" is a very silly name for a bird.

Tch, maybe you can agree on that. 'Tis a noble name.​