Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
It's funny. Laugh. The Media Science

Bad Science Awards 724

Posted by michael from the cure-for-what-ails-you dept.
KDan writes "The Bad Science Awards are out. These should put a smile on any science geek's face. Prize gems include: shrinking water molecules, anesthetic condoms, and a plan to send homeopathic AIDS remedies to Botswana."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bad Science Awards More

Bad Science Awards

Comments Filter:

  • Horses for courses (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) * on Thursday December 16, 2004 @06:51PM (#11110180) Journal
    I've just read a few of these out - the one that caused the most laughter was the 'shrinking water molecules' one. Looks like the Planck constant isn't, at least for hairdressers :-)

    I'm sure the condom story will cause the most general hilarity though - shades of 'Riotous Assembly' by Tom Sharpe - which I heartily recommend if you want people to wonder why you suddenly burst out laughing...

    The real issue of course is that the general public ("sheep") will believe anything a man in a white coat ("doctor") tells them. Scepticism is a vanishing but valuable trait :-( Perhaps if science were more popular/emphasized more at school, the problem might alleviate, but there's no votes in improving the education system in 15 years time...

    Simon
    • I'm sure the condom story will cause the most general hilarity though...

      I still have one these I got free at a nightclub. It came with a sample packet of lube that I assume contains antiseptic. Is Performa still on the market? Mine might be worth something one Ebay.

      Its actually ingenious when you think about, if more than a little counterproductive.

      • Re:Horses for courses (Score:4, Funny)

        by squidinkcalligraphy ( 558677 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:22PM (#11110480)
        Sorry guys, but how is that counterproductive? So you last longer in the sack - that's _really_ bad and should be avoided at all costs. No, sex is something that should be over and done with as quickly as possible.

        • To speak as a condom salesman (I run an online condom store http://www.xessentials.co.uk/ [xessentials.co.uk]) the "Delay" type of condom is VERY popular, at least here in the UK. Durex, Condomi and Safex all have them (with Benzocaine/Polyvalent Alcohols as the "active ingredient").

          Delay condoms are our second biggest sellers after extra thin condoms (i.e. the exact opposite for people who want MORE sensation during sex with a condom), with many repeat visitors buying them over and over again (so they obviously work for so

      • Re:Horses for courses (Score:3, Informative)

        by magefile ( 776388 )
        Not antiseptic ... anaesthetic. The stuff that numbs you?

      • Re:Horses for courses (Score:5, Funny)

        by Yaztromo ( 655250 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:37PM (#11110623) Homepage Journal
        I still have one these I got free at a nightclub. It came with a sample packet of lube that I assume contains antiseptic. Is Performa still on the market? Mine might be worth something one Ebay.

        Please allow me to post the following warning:

        WARNING: Do not use any item purchased from eBay as a contraceptive device

        Mind you, I could see some hopeful geek buying this. "I just bought a comdom on eBay for $15! Now in 4 to 6 weeks I will get to have sex!" ;).

        Its actually ingenious when you think about, if more than a little counterproductive.

        Shouldn't that be counterreproductive?

        Yaz.

      • Its actually ingenious when you think about, if more than a little counterproductive.

        Nothing new though - topical lidocaine has been available for this purpose since *ponder* the late nineteen fifties, I believe ( first in creams, then sprays ). Of course, if they didn't mention they were putting benzocaine in the lubricant, they should be pegged out in the sun on an anthill - benzocaine, while in pretty wide use ( even in teething gels and stuff for infants ) has been known to invoke a contact dermatitis

    • New meme? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fbform ( 723771 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:09PM (#11110344)


      From the article:

      However the winner was Space Tomato Number One, part of the Chinese government's "space breeding" project, where radiation in space is used to create comic book mutations and giant space plants, including tomatoes weighing almost a kilogram. ...The Chinese news agency Xinhua stated that, "in China the radiation effect is always positive, leading to bigger and better vegetables that will revolutionise agriculture."

      I fear we may have a new meme on our hands: In China, X is always positive.

    • Re:Horses for courses (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Bastian ( 66383 )
      Perhaps if science were more popular/emphasized more at school, the problem might alleviate

      The problem isn't that science isn't being taught. A lot of scientific facts are taught, and a nod is given to the scientific method, even.

      What isn't being taught is reason and skepticism. And the way science is taught - as a stream of facts for the students to swallow unquestioningly - only encourages that lack of skepticism. After all, it's not a very big jump from being spoon-fed cute lab demonstrations by a

  • Space men (Score:5, Funny)

    by DrugCheese ( 266151 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @06:52PM (#11110190)
    I think we should grow a baby from birth in a space capsule that is rotating to mimic a gravity much greater then Earths gravity. Then when he's on earth he'll be like superman.

    Or grow vegatables in 0 gravity so they can grow HUGE.

    Bad science I know but it'd be fun to see the results

  • thats all fine but... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ccbutler ( 840014 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @06:54PM (#11110217) Journal
    where's the monkey with 4 asses?

  • Dyslexic (Score:4, Funny)

    by turtledot ( 827674 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @06:55PM (#11110224)
    I need new glasses - first time reading it looked like: "Prize gems include: homeopathic water molecules, shrinking condoms, and a plan to send anesthetic AIDS remedies to Botswana." Whoa.
  • what about all the people insisting on teaching creationism in school as an alternative theory to evolution in biology classes?

    repeat after me: creationism (or "intelligent design") is not a scientific theory. it has no predicative power, it offers no real explanation, nor can it be tested.

    it belongs in philosophy, religion, psychology and/or sociology classes but not in a science class.

    • Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:00PM (#11110270)
      psychology and/or sociology classes but not in a science class

      You are mistaken. Psychology and sociology are both sciences.

    • Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:11PM (#11110365)

      what about all the people insisting on teaching creationism in school as an alternative theory to evolution in biology classes?

      These are British awards. I've never heard of anybody here in the UK insisting on anything of the sort.

    • Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Geoffreyerffoeg ( 729040 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:13PM (#11110395)
      Then you better explain that "science" is only a pragmatic, physical explanation of observed results -- it can make no claim to being "truth". Science is useful, since it's the best way of analyzing things. But it's entirely possible that a deity created the universe as it is such that science reports these results, and science is too small in scope to be able to refute that possibility.

      Honestly. Some people treat science like it's a religion or something (pun intended). It's only an explanation. If anything, science is an alternative theory to common organized religion just as much as creationism is an alternative theory to evolution.

      • Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by alienw ( 585907 ) <alienw.slashdot@ ... inus threevowels> on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:18PM (#11110435)
        Since creationism is not scientific, it should not be called an alternative theory. They should not be put side-by-side, since they are not on the same footing.

      • Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jxyama ( 821091 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:23PM (#11110483)
        > Then you better explain that "science" is only a pragmatic, physical explanation of observed results .

        ...and religion is not a "pragmatic, physical explanation of observed results.". that's why i said a religious theory (which is what creationsim is) doesn't belong in a science class.

        i never said creationism is "wrong." it has its place in the learning/education and this world. just not in a science class.

        • Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Geoffreyerffoeg ( 729040 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:31PM (#11110574)
          The problem is that lots of people have the mistaken assumption that science (and in general, what they learn in school) is "true". Science is simply a self-consistent closed system that models the real world. I agree that science and religion are separate, and neither belong in the other's place. But when we have the state forcing science education combined with a common assumption that the real world is the scientific model, we have a problem.
          • i think people smarter than me can offer reasons why scientific method is one of the most logical and powerful way for us to test the hypotheses and provide explanations as to how our world works.

            i cannot see similar convictions for a method that tells me to read a book and take what it says as an explanation on "faith."

            • Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Geoffreyerffoeg ( 729040 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:52PM (#11110784)
              Of course you can't see a logical reason to accept religion. That's not the point. I don't see a religious reason to accept logic. Your instinctive trust of logic is pretty much equivalently rooted to my instinctive trust of God.

              The scientific method is powerful and is logical. I agree with it. I have never said that I don't believe that science works, or that it is incorrect. I have never said I believe, and in fact I don't believe, that God created the world at once so that evolutionism arose from a mass of confused scientists and evil conspirators. I am a scientist at heart, as much as I am a Christian.

              Yet science is only valid within the realm of science. Your saying that logic precludes a deity is no more valid than my saying that the Bible precludes evolution.

              I also believe in Jesus Christ because of what you may call the scientific method: many repeated experiences of the power of God. Note that I do not take Scientology on faith. In it I've seen many repeated examples of corporate abuse of people.

              • Yet science is only valid within the realm of science
                True. But then what exactly is "the realm of science"? It's just simply "stuff we can test and try to prove ourselves wrong." Anything not in that realm is something that has no credibility because you can't differentiate the made-up from the rigiously tested. And that the line separating that realm from other things is not stagnant. What isn't science today could become science tomorrow. It all depends on what kinds of tests can be devised.


                No

      • Deity does not help analyze things (Score:4, Insightful)

        by aepervius ( 535155 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:25PM (#11110506)
        Science never suppose the existence or the inexistence of supra-human entity. It isn't a question of SCOPE, it is a question of REPRODUCIBILITY and PROOF (falsibility?). True it is entirely possible a God exists, but there is no proof either toward existence or non-existence. But using the existence of God as an hypothesis for a explanation of a phenomennon make it belong to religion/philosophy, not science. That is, unleess you can prove God exists. then it would belong to science to. Thus the argument of the original poster that creationism is not science and should not belong to biology teaching is 100% right.

      • Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:27PM (#11110534)
        Ok, so why don't we teach in public schools that the earth was created by Xenu and that we're all infected with Body Thetans, or some other such nonsense? It's possible, as it's also possible that we're all living in a big computer simulation.

        The difference between science and superstition (also known as "religion") is that it doesn't claim to be 100% correct, and is constantly checked and verified and revised to get as close to the truth as possible. If you want to believe in some crazy story that some other person made up, feel free; but schools are for educating people with things that are useful, not making them believe lies.

        It's hard to believe that even here, on Slashdot, "news for nerds", so many people are completely ignorant of what science is.

    • what about all the people insisting on teaching creationism in school as an alternative theory to evolution in biology classes?

      There's an eloquent way to seperate the religion from the science: Science is there to try to explain the how (How does a rock fall? How do we procreate? Fact based questions.) Religion is there to explain the why (why does the rock fall? Why do we procreate? Theology.). The trick is to make the seperation - something we as americans are no good at. School is responsible for the s

    • I suspect it was omitted for much the same reason as progressive evolution.

      Neither are scientific, neither are falsifiable. Both rely upon unprovable axioms, and neither have thus far managed to display any predictive power.

    • creationism (or "intelligent design") is not a scientific theory. it has no predicative power, it offers no real explanation, nor can it be tested.

      Just to make the argument - all of the above apply to "big bang" theory as well.

      Did the universe come from somewhere, or not? This is the fundamental question - and no theory surrounding this can ever meet any of your above criteria, unless we invent some time machine that could withstand the collapse of the universe and go check it out.

      I agree with you that cr

      • Not true (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Chuck Chunder ( 21021 )
        Just to make the argument - all of the above apply to "big bang" theory as well.
        That's simply not true. While it certainly isn't a complete how-to on universe creation it is a testable theory in the sense it enables us to ask "What would we expect to see if early on there were a very hot, rapidly expanding universe?" and then go looking for evidence that matches it.

        It might not give us the reason for the "big bang" occurring but as far as I know nor does it claim to.
      • Just to make the argument - all of the above apply to "big bang" theory as well.

        The Big Bang, as I understand it, started out not as a theory, but as the result of extrapolation. Start out with the Universe as we observe it now, including expansion and run time backwards. Everything will end up in the same place at the same time. From that, you can deduce that everything started out there, resulting in the Big Bang.

    • Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:5, Funny)

      by wfberg ( 24378 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:21PM (#11110469)
      repeat after me: creationism (or "intelligent design") is not a scientific theory. it has no predicative power, it offers no real explanation, nor can it be tested.

      Well, as creationists will point out, evolution can't be tested on a multi-million year time-scale either, and multi-million-year predictions are hard to check.. As for offering no real explanation, creationists will also disagree about that; and moreover, real scientific theories sometimes don't have real explanations; like Newton's theory of gravity.

      The thing with creationism is that it cannot be disproved, and that's what makes it a non-contender. It's called falsifiability. You can never prove there is NO God. Perhaps he likes it that way, and being almighty, there's no way you're gonna catch him out! Can't be sure, can you? In fact, he might be faking all them scientific resultamajigs so as to test y'all's faith in him! Nope siree, can't disprove God.

      On the other hand, if the skies crack open and a thundering voice bellows "This is God. Evolution is a crock. Check out genes #43.125-43.234 in starfish and humans" and it turns out those genes contain a binary encoded (C/G=1, T/A=0) message saying "(c) YHWH, 4000BC, nobody mess with my copyrites, I rulez0rs, go forth and multiply suckas!", well, then that could quite possibly be a good way to disprove evolution..

      • Re:how about "creationism" crap? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Odin's Raven ( 145278 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @10:17PM (#11112073)
        You can never prove there is NO God.

        You could if you found a Babel fish.

  • Hmm.. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    These should put a smile on any science geek's face.

    - anesthetic condoms
    - a plan to send homeopathic AIDS remedies to Botswana

    Well that makes one see geeks in a whole new light..
    • Well, if homeopathic medicines actually work as advertised, why would we need to send them at all.

      Come to think of it, why would we even be sick in the first place? Wouldn't we already all be bathed in the beneficial and health-giving vibrations of the trace homeopathic elements in our environment?

  • Damn, that's a harsh prize (Score:5, Funny)

    by The Angry Mick ( 632931 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:02PM (#11110281) Homepage

    According to TFA, Dr Gillian McKeith PhD. wins this prize for "outstanding innovation in the use of the title 'Doctor'":

    She received a small specimen jar containing the faeces of the judging panel

    Man, that's just harsh . . .

  • My favorite [read: most annoying] bad science: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bplipschitz ( 265300 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:02PM (#11110285)
    "The fact that Al Quaeda hasn't attacked us again just proves that we are winning the war on terror, and that we are doing the right things to prevent it."

    Oh, I'm sorry, that's not bad science, that's just really bad logic. . .

  • What the hell? (Score:5, Funny)

    by nizo ( 81281 ) * on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:03PM (#11110296) Homepage Journal
    The magic ingredient [inside the condom] was benzocaine, a local anaesthetic, which made the judges' tongues go numb.

    Can someone tell me why they put the condoms on their tongues? Or is that part of their normal testing process for bad science?

  • Stretching the limits of credulity (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It isn't just the people who'll gladly believe anything a man in a white coat tells them who're the problem, it's also the ones who flatly refuse to trust anything 'scientific'. The people who'll loudly proclaim homeopathy, acupuncture, reiki, therapeutic touch or whatever other bizarre quackery happens to be the fad of the moment to be the cure for everything.

    Sure, we have wonderful scientists like Kevin Warwick: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/12/11/kevin_warw ick_a_life/ [theregister.co.uk] flying the flag for idiocy,

  • Homeopathic remedy for AIDS ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aepervius ( 535155 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:05PM (#11110316)
    Sending Homeopathic remedy for AIDS to a country is not bad science. It is murder pure and simple. You might jsut as well give them sweets and tell them it is a medicament. Oh , wait ...

    • Re:Homeopathic remedy for AIDS ? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by h00dLuM ( 630451 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @08:07PM (#11110933)
      After over 3 years with my (Kenyan) ex, I'd seen enough. No small number of times I was in the company of a roomful of African friends and the topic changed to AIDS. The overwhelming concensus was that condoms *themselves* were the cause of AIDS, and were provided by the White man (ahem - that's me) as part of plot to infect Africans. Literally that the plastic itself was tainted w/ the virus. They actually blamed condoms for spreading AIDS. And these were those living here in North America - can only speculate on what rumours actually float around the "Motherland".

      *NOT* a troll I wouldn't believe it myself unless I'd seen it personally on numerous occasions.

  • Durex Performa (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:06PM (#11110323)
    I've tried these, and they work . . . somewhat. The lubricant contains a local anesthetic that dulls sensations . . . for obvious uses.

    I found that I didn't like them, and the dullness continued longer than desired. Secondary considerations included not being able to maintain an erection as easily (hehe, little guy couldn't feel anything, so he said "Why bother?").

    Other guys could probably use them with better success. It was worth a try, but I'd not recommend them whole-heartedly.
  • They're the same kind of bitter, arrogant people who dare claim my MD from Hollywood Upstairs Medical College isn't a real degree.
  • "Jeanette Winterson, for her excellent plan to send homeopathic remedies to treat HIV in Botswana" - at least the postage should be cheap.

  • Shrinking Water Molecules? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Radical Rad ( 138892 ) on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:28PM (#11110553) Homepage
    But the winner was a hair-straightening treatment by Bioionic, called Ionic Hair Retexturizing: "Water molecules are broken down to a fraction of their previous size ... diminutive enough to penetrate through the cuticle, and eventually into the core of each hair". Shrinking molecules caused some concern among the physicists at the ceremony, since IHR was available just 200 yards away, and the only other groups who have managed to create superdense quark-gluon plasma used a relativistic heavy ion collider. The prospect of such equipment being used by hairdressers was deemed worthy of further investigation.

    I half expected to find them using Randell Mill's BlackLight Process [blacklightpower.com] to create "Oxygen Dihydrino".

  • Cranial osteopathy... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 16, 2004 @07:39PM (#11110652)
    From the article...

    he also states that your skull "contracts and expands a dozen times or so each minute to push the [cerebrospinal] fluid round" your brain, along with various other amusing misunderstandings of basic medicine.

    This is actually a pretty controversial area of medicine-- known as cranial osteopathy [cranialacademy.org], there have been numerous studies that claim to show that the skull does have movement due to cerebrospinal pressure. Actual doctors do believe this, although as I say, it's not commonly accepted.

    If anyone's interested, I'll dig up some research..

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close