> Some people disagree with this, too, and for seemingly good > reasons. >>
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/nothing_will_stop_the_never-en.php#comment-2258567
[...] The reason I post is this; apparently the "good reasons" part went over my head, as did the part about what exactly "they" don't agree with...
I'm not criticizing you for posting the ScienceDaily story! :-) I'm trying to _add_ to the discussion _about_ it.
I infer that Dodds' method was throw as much peer-reviewed data as was available on a scatter-plot and find the slope, which was 2/3, and then advance a hypothesis about underlying mechanical causes. What is the objection?
Read the blog comment I linked to (see above), and the Nature paper the comment links to. Strangely, the Nature paper is freely accessible.