Have you guys actually read the article before commenting?
Not the fancy press release, written by a journalist who has only a faint idea what he is writing about? His aims are to a) simplify b) summarize c) make an interesting story so that people read it and pay his supper.
And often in these press releases the content is 90% bla bla, 5% name dropping and, if you're lucky, 5% (overly simplified) science.
Here is the proper stuff. Go for it. It is available free of charge. And it's actually well written.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4978971/@ whipartist
Peer Review: Yes, it has it's flaws. However, without much more *** would get published.
Mathematical Formalism: Absolutely necessary. Without it it's belief against belief, word against word. Someone says: I can kill an impala with a stone. The other says: I can't. Both firmly belief their opinion, but the second guy just sucks at throwing
.
With a model you can actually pinpoint the mistake and improve your understanding or the model. Much faster than training for 2 years to build up muscles and to learn how to throw just to realize that you learned the wrong throwing style. I personally think the "blunt criterion" in the article is quite nice. We should try to adapt this for slinging to figure out the optimal slinging stone size for hunting compared to stone size for warfare. I don't say that all models are perfect. They have limits of course. But a good model really helps, given that it is applied correctly.
Whipartist wrote on Aug 30
th, 2016 at 2:04pm:
The truth is that real science is just carefully learning from experience.
Absolutely true. And if you make the experience that your mathematical model is wrong then you are doing science.
Pages: 1
Artikel (Read 1284 times)
