Biased BBC contributor Chris Hartnett writes..

Heard the BBC Today programme this morning!

Two separate universities were peddling terrible science-Durham and Bristol no less!

1.Durham tell me that monkeys smell the genes of suitable mates!

This is clearly due to (and therefore confirmation of) natural selection. WE don`t know HOW they do this but we can say that they do it deliberately! This confirms the famous “smelly T-shirt tests” of the 90s and shows that we too will no doubt “unconsciously” choose our mates in the same way-hold the Downs Syndrome research please! This was Durham University Anthropology Departments offering!

2. Bristol tell me that-on this the day of a “strategic policy announcement” by the Government by happy coincidence-that a survey of 1300 girls and vulnerable Young women shows that all men and boys are “totally beastly”. They need to be told early in primary school that domestic violence is” inappropriate “(“out of order!” for those less gifted maybe?) and the senior research “fellow”(surely Harman needs another word here!)-one Quango Christine Barter(honest!)-tells us that they all lack self-esteem(natch!). This is what Bristol’s Centre for Gender and Violence(formerly under Luton University’s wing until all inequality was removed there in 2005!) offered us up to the news at 8.00!

So my points?

James Naughtie may know his opera but does he have the first clue about science-a survey of 1300 girls say that boys can be “totally” a pain-did Barter ask Jane Andrews? is 1300 a sufficient survey size?-might not her department get a little funding and support for its agenda?-were the NSPCC and other charities helpful-and why today to coincide with State plans? many questions!

Are the great gods of “equality and men bashing” as well as Darwins theory (no chance mate-its fact or you`re excommunicated from the funding streams!) to be indulged by the liberal arts graduates who put these asinine gobbets of pseudo science into the mouths of the Today presenters?

Lets hear no more about dumbing down from Durham or Bristol unless they set out whether their funding depends on getting on Naughties stump to smear teatree oil over all their academic reputations-UEA ought to warn them that it`s slippery out there!

Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to BAD SCIENCE, GOOD BBC

  1. deegee says:

    The Durham University test reminds me of the experiment on Brainiac – Science Abuse (movie attached) where the ‘scientists’ investigated pheromones. The level of scientific rigor would seem to be about the same.


  2. John Horne Tooke says:

    British Universities are like all education in this country – a politically shoddy propaganda machine for the far left. I doubt  Newton would have had such a success if he had been through the university system today.


  3. Will S says:

    But it’s not just the BBC News that are poor in dealing with real science, giving prominent misleading headlines and commentary on such subjects. All the MSM are guilty on this count.

    Even most serious documentaries are infected with the virus of dumbing-down weighty topics, thought the BBC et al did do well with their various programmes covering the wonderful work of Darwin.

    Will S


  4. John Horne Tooke says:

    “There are major differences between real science and bureaucratic science (BS). Real science involves living with the prospect of failure. In BS, failure is not allowed. The whole project is mapped out beforehand in forms such as Gantt charts. There are deliverables that have to be delivered on the due date. With the exception of really big physics, real science is carried out by small groups. It is the same with BS, except that there are about five managers for every researcher. Above all the expected result must be delivered on time. Those who desire further patronage never report a negative result or, indeed, a result at variance with the expectations of the sponsors.

    We can identify the “scientists” who habitually lie by the fact that they produce, on time, results that are never unexpected and always conform to the establishment-sponsored theory. Real science is never that predictable.”