More Bunk Science

The Daily Mail can be summed up with this:'Asylum seekers lower house prices, corruption of family values, it's PC'gone mad, god bless Diana, immigrants cause crime and take our jobs, send 'em back home, scroungers win the lottery, single mothers are evil, you can catch gay (and that's what they want to do to your kids), god bless Diana, can't print that in a family news paper, support our brave British lads, British lads responsible for riots, our investigator made his excuses and left, hanging's too god for them, god bless Diana.'You've now read pretty much every Daily Mail printed, ever.

There is a well known trait in people to match people on looks when asked to match a selection of individuals to other in the selection range.When people were also asked to rate people as more or less attractive one of the trends for attractivenes was a symmetical face.As I recall there was resaerch into babies spending more time looking at symmetrical faces then none symmetrical faces.Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but on a statistical level there are trends to suggest that generally people find more symmetrical faces more attractive.Another point I rememeber is that people go for people within there looks range (e.g. 7/10s go for 7/10). Again, this is just a general rule.Think of it as a rule of thumb. You have it wrong, they asked "what is a common factor in these people who have been rated attractive, oh I see, they are very symmetrical".From an evolutionary perspective any asymmetry in the face could indicate a body that has not developed as effectively as a more symmetrical body and is thus less attractive in term of fittness.Or a lumpy face with a colliflour ear is idicative of getting into fights aand not being a stable choice in partner. But then you would be putting the cart before the horse. As explained, the conclusion was derived from the evidence rather than the conclusion was sought.That's cooking the books and it ain't science.Edited by Larni, : significant to trends

Every thing cures/causes cancer, lol!Have you read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre?Edited by Larni, : Clarity

Ha ha! I too played rugby in my younger days but as a fly half. I would dance around the lumbering oats (until I didn't and then I would be knocked head over heels- great days).And like all other rugby players I too, am exceptionally handsome (and god with my hands

100 that he has no idea the significance of p (or even that pun).

The only thing you have shown is another knee jerk reaction against the scientific community.You read the article, believed what the journos told you and came here raving about how bad scientist are.Aside from you prejudice you have only shown us that journos miss report scientific findings to trigger knee jerk reactions from people like you.We already knew that and it worked.