It's a bit easier to read but is very good. Well worth the read. I have the RFK book but haven't finished it yet.
What does the science say?
- Thread starter kosovel
- Start date
Well, IMO, when one presents "science" or "scientific proof," a challenge of its validity is fair game. In fact, such challenge is a key part of the scientific process -- notable examples being Galileo and Newton.
Within the last couple of years, two of the most respected medical journals in the world, the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, both published articles that were ultimately found to be false -- yet the articles slipped through the screening process and made it to print. Years ago in one of my classes we group analyzed an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The materials and methods, loose associations, sample size, failure to account for variables, and more were so full of holes it was unbelievable that the article made it to print and it was scary that treatment decisions might be based on it. So yes, "science" is sometimes wrong.
But back to a shaving theme. I'm reminded of an article I found several years ago in the dermatology literature that focused on face shaving. One of its conclusions was that hysteresis (I think that is the term) of whiskers is a real phenomenon and thus multiblade razors always provide a closer shave than single blade razors. I'm going to bet that if I put that "science" out here on this forum there would be many challenges, and some folks would say that based on their personal experience that claim just isn't true. And if it was also revealed that the research had been funded by a grant from Gillette (a hypothetical, as I don't remember who funded the research), with Gillette positioned to make $$ from folks believing that multiblade razors are superior, the "scientific" conclusion would be even more distrusted and disputed.
Having said all that, your articles were interesting and I appreciate your posting of them.
Fantastic post! Love the science AND the history!
Maybe I’ll waste just a little money and have a synthetic faux badger knot put in great grandad’s old brush handle. As it sits, not something I would put on my face, but it’s a cool old handle and family artifact even if it is worth a grand total of about 6-$10 on fleabay. Many of the old Ever-ready brushes that are impossible to date were from that WW1 era. Going back to read the link on the facial hair science.
Maybe I’ll waste just a little money and have a synthetic faux badger knot put in great grandad’s old brush handle. As it sits, not something I would put on my face, but it’s a cool old handle and family artifact even if it is worth a grand total of about 6-$10 on fleabay. Many of the old Ever-ready brushes that are impossible to date were from that WW1 era. Going back to read the link on the facial hair science.
- Thread starter
- #24
Not a particularly informative podcast about razors: Razors - Sliced Bread - https://pca.st/96crv2wu
Still might be of interest to some of you.
Still might be of interest to some of you.
Science says...dinosaurs existed, hah
The most common and robust finding in all of science is that more research (funding) is needed.
I'm applying for a 30 year Government Grant to look into and do a study on all of this, it beats trudging through the Amazon licking various frogs for thirty years.
On the subject of science, I heard a report yesterday on NPR... a researcher in Europe was studying how much of current 'research' is actually fabricated. His team found a way to search through huge databases using identifiers to find papers that were likely dubious. Their rough estimate is that 28% of all currently published biomedical research is made up.
The era of strict peer review, during which it was generally 6-9 months from the time your paper was submitted until the time it was published, usually with several revisions, is gone. Now there is a huge volume of 'pay-to-play' literature being published on the web. Scary.
The era of strict peer review, during which it was generally 6-9 months from the time your paper was submitted until the time it was published, usually with several revisions, is gone. Now there is a huge volume of 'pay-to-play' literature being published on the web. Scary.
