Change in blog name

I have decided to change my blog name. I found the existing name too much defensive and probably cunning. Here I am trying to disprove and sometimes slander some of the existing theories and propose my own theories(or hypothesis). But always reminding my reader my not-so-ideal state of mind. It is something like throwing mud on others after smearing myself with it. It of course stinks and I am not very happy with this.

My defensive state comes from the fact that I do not have a proper education and understanding of the things that I talk about. But so what? I do not have a proper understanding of anything under the sun. And this makes me to believe probably I have an equal understanding of all of the things in my own way of thinking. Some words talk to me very strongly and some not at all. I do not have to bother about the fate of my theory as the rules should take care of them. Probably, I should understand it by myself over time or by others. In my opinion, I should be knowing to the rules of presenting a hypothesis, if not, should have enough common sense to understand its weak points.

Of course, my change of heart must be attributed to, in no small measure, to this study that I came across at Indo-Eurasian_research yahoo group. From the summary;

There is increasing concern that most
current published research fi ndings are
false. The probability that a research claim
is true may depend on study power and
bias, the number of other studies on the
same question, and, importantly, the ratio
of true to no relationships among the
relationships probed in each scientifi c
fi eld. In this framework, a research fi nding
is less likely to be true when the studies
conducted in a fi eld are smaller; when
effect sizes are smaller; when there is a
greater number and lesser preselection
of tested relationships; where there is
greater fl exibility in designs, defi nitions,
outcomes, and analytical modes; when
there is greater fi nancial and other
interest and prejudice; and when more
teams are involved in a scientifi c fi eld
in chase of statistical signifi cance.
Simulations show that for most study
designs and settings, it is more likely for
a research claim to be false than true.
Moreover, for many current scientifi c
fi elds, claimed research fi ndings may
often be simply accurate measures of the
prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the
implications of these problems for the
conduct and interpretation of research.

The article is about research in Medicine. And this of course especially true in the case of Medical studies of Population Genetics the backbone of the farce called Human bio-diversity. I think they want to come out with white medicine, black medicine, yellow medicine...probably, brown medicine or upper caste medicine/lower caste medicine etc...

Well, I believe if this is the case with researches in Medicine what about not-so-scientific field of anthropology. I do not have to explicitly say that I am incoherent. The whole field is.