Re:Mind-controlling parasite makes hyena cubs more reckless ...
by pvaldes on Wednesday July 07, 2021 @03:35AM
(#27758409)
> Is some company creating 'product' for this and needs some marketing?
That would be my first candidate, yep. A problem with this is the disconnection between effect and cause. The startup could be lying to themselves and entering in a greyhound race trying to develop a solution for a problem that was not the problem that they though it was. There is a risk that the final product will have a really short life (and makers hate to be told that). "Ozone machines against Covid" came to my mind for example.
Blind faith towards bad (or biased) science is a problem.
Is like discovering that people drunk with severe headache drive reckless and are more prone to have accidents at work and "all had drive licenses", and concluding that "people with drive licenses are worse drivers than people without; we have another publication".
Sorry, but this is not "creature is mind-controlling me", is "my brain is on fire" (and my experiment design could be better).
In the experiment the hyaena cubs supposedly move closer to lions. Maybe the cubs are just uncomfortable and trying to find a relief instead to defying lions?. Are the same ill cubs moving more far away from lions also?. I would want to see the Standard deviation for distances, and a control group in the articles related with predator urine to discard just an increase in wandering searching for water.
Are this cubs moving toward water sources where lions gather?
Are this cubs looking for a more shadowed spot where lions rest?
This kind of studies precooked to produce the desired answer while ignoring the, more probable, but non publishable and less sexy explanations border pseudosience. Extreme claims require extraordinary solid proofs, not tabloid style management.
That would be my first candidate, yep. A problem with this is the disconnection between effect and cause. The startup could be lying to themselves and entering in a greyhound race trying to develop a solution for a problem that was not the problem that they though it was. There is a risk that the final product will have a really short life (and makers hate to be told that). "Ozone machines against Covid" came to my mind for example.
Blind faith towards bad (or biased) science is a problem.
Is like discovering that people drunk with severe headache drive reckless and are more prone to have accidents at work and "all had drive licenses", and concluding that "people with drive licenses are worse drivers than people without; we have another publication".
Sorry, but this is not "creature is mind-controlling me", is "my brain is on fire" (and my experiment design could be better).
In the experiment the hyaena cubs supposedly move closer to lions. Maybe the cubs are just uncomfortable and trying to find a relief instead to defying lions?. Are the same ill cubs moving more far away from lions also?. I would want to see the Standard deviation for distances, and a control group in the articles related with predator urine to discard just an increase in wandering searching for water.
Are this cubs moving toward water sources where lions gather?
Are this cubs looking for a more shadowed spot where lions rest?
This kind of studies precooked to produce the desired answer while ignoring the, more probable, but non publishable and less sexy explanations border pseudosience. Extreme claims require extraordinary solid proofs, not tabloid style management.