|
I don't want to turn this into a long drawn out discussion. The BBC article is problematic because the claims made in the abstract are much tighter than the claims made in the article.
It's one thing to say "We didn't find any evidence that g-spots are heritable." This is what the abstract says. It's another thing entirely to say "We didn't find any evidence that g-spots are heritable, therefore they do not exist." This is what the researcher quoted in the article seems to think.
I think that the responses in this thread are probably fairly typical of the types of concerns people have when they are: unfamiliar with the ins and outs of clinical research methods; butting up against clinical research results (as reported in the BBC article)which seems to directly contradict their own experiences. They should be skeptical-- it's the appropriate course of action given the circumstances.
Unfortunately, the scientific community does a pretty shitty job getting actual research into regular folks' hands, so people are left to muddle around with a shitty BBC article and a short-on-detail abstract.
|