I learned that the Nick website only sucks in Firefox (no idea why, since I love Firefox.) If you open it in Chrome, it works better.

Reproducing scientific papers is extremely rare, so while it's useful, it is not a good way to judge a scientific finding. Most often, it's a waste of time and resources. Funding agencies are not going to be keen to reproduce a study unless it's really important that something be gotten right (like the efficacy of a…

I'd say corroboration is stronger than replication, because sometimes, there is some flaw in the experiment's design. Having multiple approaches to a theory that all lend different support is much more convincing than replication.

Yeah, this list is not so good. A journal's impact factor is not a great way to tell if the paper in question is scientifically accurate. More often, it's a reflection of the level of interest that publishers think the paper will have. Most scientific work is never reproduced, either. It would be a waste of money.…

While I hope that what the article asserts is true, there are several leaps that are made. The first, as you mentioned, is that we are not baboons. That doesn't totally discount the information, but it does make one skeptical. The bigger problem is that the assertion that we are not naturally misogynistic is not…

The Gods of Pegana by Lord Dunsany (1905) is supposed to be one of the big one of the big influences on Lovecraft. It's wonderfully weird and fun. I'd recommend it for anyone who likes strange gods in concocted mythologies.