On 1 Oct 2004, Robin Abrahams explained: > The Igs are NOT a prize > for bad science. The Igs can go for achievements that are good, > bad, or somewhere in between. The only thing they have to be is > both funny and thought-provoking.
I love the Igs. But my argumentative nature compells me to object. They've recently changed to a kinder, gentler criterion, from the original "research which cannot and should not be reproduced", undoubtedly to prevent hurt feelings (and the Chronicle of Higher Education seems to persist in promoting the old criterion). But to be consistent they really should do something about the name Ig Noble, which means base or dishonourable (I hope they don't). As for the claim that the research cited must be _both_ funny and thought-provoking, Robin Abrahams, are you going to stand up there (figuratively) and tell me that your husband would reject an otherwise deserving work simply because it was _only_ funny, and was not in any way thought-provoking? Without naming names, I have to say that there appear among every year's list at least one which only provokes the incredulous thought "What the %$^^&* made them do something like that"? Admit it, "makes you think" is a feel-good criterion, not one you actually use. And I hope that one day that I will be worthy of this exalted award myself. Stephen __________________________________________________ Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470 Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661 Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm _______________________________________________ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
