Math formula may explain why serial killers kill
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/18/math-formula-may-explains-why-serial-killers-kill/
Hopefully my title got you to pay attention. The title, though, does point out to what I consider a serious deficiency in the article, the addressing of the ‘so what?’ response. We can’t predict earthquakes, avalanches or stock market crashes, only provide probabilities that such events are more or less likely to happen in any time interval. Other than providing some potentially plausible excuse for why the killer shouldn’t be punished as severely (Oh, we won’t give you the death penalty because you sadistically tortured all those women for all those days, we will just give you a slap on the wrist and send you on your way!) and the (seemingly tiny) potential to help the hunters of serial killers, I see the article as having nearly zero utility. Sort of like observing that it always is cloudy when it rains (except, of course, for those instances when it is sunny when it rains). If it is ever cloudy and doesn’t rain, then what possible value is making the initial statement?
The article is a perfect example of what I call, “blather.” I freely admit that I indulge in producing it quite happily. However, I don’t get paid for it and I don’t think I fool nearly as many people as this author and others of the ilk.
Blather! Perfect. I am jealous I didn’t think of that, it is the perfect description (and such a beautiful word!).
Perhaps it was a slow news day or perhaps more likely, because it is a scientific article with the words ‘serial killer’ in it, the Fox editors thought it would be something great for gathering eyeballs and thus upping ad revenue.