FAQ | Register Now | Sign In

Subscribe to the newsletter

[x]

Stay in touch with the scientific world!

Evolutionary Psychology: Your Parents Income During Pregnancy Made You Gay

Evolutionary psychology, the discipline that claimed we're being manipulated by flowers and evolved...

Oil Kept Congo From Starving - Western Academics Don't Seem To Like That

If even a wealthy like Germany has to lie about emissions to placate government-funded environmentalists...

China Sells Western Progressives Solar Panels While Switching To Nuclear Power

China has quietly overtaken France to become the world's second-largest producer of nuclear energy. ...

If You Care About Earth Day, Stop Buying Organic, Fair Trade And Other Junk Stickers On Products

As Lenin's Birthday Earth Day approaches, all of media are pillaged by public relations flaks being...

Hank Campbell

I founded Science 2.0® in 2006 and since then it has become the world's largest independent science communications site, with over 300,000,000 direct readers and reach approaching one billion. Read More »

First Pluto, Now Astrology? Ophiuchus Needs To Be The 13th Sign, Says Astronomer

Jan 13 2011 | comment(s)

When I was a younger guy, I read my astrology sign 'predictions' in the newspaper. It was in the comics section, so clearly no one took it too seriously. But astrology had at least a foundation in science. Unfortunately, like homeopathy, it has long outlived its quirky time even though it has been shown to be rubbish.

But people who do have an interest in astrology will want to take notice soon. Astronomer Parke Kunkle told NBC the astrology signs have not been updated in so long they aren't really accurate. In fact, there need to be 13 instead of 12, due to changes in the Earth's alignment.

Facebook Is Obsessed With A Science Cheerleader

Jan 13 2011 | comment(s)

I'm not sure how many of you out there have Facebook - quite a few, I assume, given their huge participation numbers - but on a frequent basis they introduce changes designed to help us.

I can't argue with Mark Zuckerberg's instincts, since the valuation on Facebook is 10,000 times that of Science 2.0, but it doesn't always seem like the changes are good. I used to have a Home feed that gave me a cross section of new things from people on my friend list but now I can't figure out how it works - I get meaningless stuff from people I don't really know so I rarely use it these days.

Sorry sociologists, Arizona shooter Jared Loughner did not watch Fox News

Jan 12 2011 | comment(s)

Sociologists love when people get shot; it gives them a chance to make correlation/causation arrows go in all kinds of crazy directions.

So when people jumped on the gun rage by Jared Loughner as a product of the Tea Party or a climate of hate or whatever they wanted to call it, they easily found someone in sociology to back them up on it.

It must be extremism or something else that he got from listening to Rush Limbaugh or watching Fox News, right? Unless it is just some crazy guy shooting people. Mapping events to a cultural topology or a social agenda is not science - not even social science - it is plain old superstition.

Is There Still Gender Discrimination In Science?

Jan 12 2011 | comment(s)

Is there still gender discrimination in science? We hear about it even today but is it a real problem or is it primarily a problem in that 'if there is even one instance it is too many' way that zealots insist on zero tolerance, even when applied to individuals who sometimes make decisions based on silly reasons.

Sexing Up Global Warming For A New Decade

Jan 03 2011 | comment(s)

Environmental groups are concerned they have lost the trust of the public regarding global warming so they have taken to new marketing approaches. They started the last decade with runaway public interest and goodwill and ended it with scandals and black marks on the credibility of the climate field.

Is A Ph.D. A Waste Of Time?

Dec 30 2010 | comment(s)

The Economist argues, as they would be expected to argue, given their free market leaning, that due to the glut of Ph.D.s and therefore the poor job market (in academia), it is a waste of time. A Ph.D. who enters the job corporate world for anything except basic research has the wrong set of skills, according to corporate hiring managers, so it is actually better to hire a bachelor's or Masters degree and spend the time in the corporate world. Numbers bear it out. While a Ph.D. earns more than a bachelor's degree today the difference between a Ph.D. and a Masters is barely noticeable.