So this article about why science should not dictate policy got a lot of attention.

As near as I can tell, the main complaint is that scientists are far from perfect.

The very fact that this is a complaint shows how little the writer understands science.

See, science does NOT purport some perfect or secret knowledge.  As a matter of fact, it will often, and frequently, be wrong.  It makes no attempt to hide this.  It is only over the accumulated weight of years that science irons out its bad theories.  To claim otherwise is to seriously misunderstand the scientific process.

I am bleeding, there is a stain on the floor, and some people expect me to save the day.

Business as usual.

"Extremadura should be pleased with itself. It may have the most unemployed young people in Spain, but they will be the best at masturbation." - Pilar Rahola, La Vanguardia

"Heed the advice of the old wise man. Sometimes women insist on getting themselves hurt, and all you can do is help them."

- Isam of Infogrames

I hate obvious fucking answers. I know nobody has everything in order.  That's life.  But what goes through someone's mind when they deflect a question with the most inane retort possible?

In 'Boy vs. Interested,' fading_roses19 asked:

I responded by gently pointing out that her summary avoids the real issue:

Her response was less than forthcoming, either because she missed the implication, or because her mental aversion of the real issue is so total and complete that she can't deal with it even when someone points out that she needs to make a choice in order to continue.

Yeah, I kind of figured your participation was involved.  When I ask WHY in that context, I am asking, but why did you want it?  Because you were always attracted, or because you can see a future together, or because he was aggressive and you got excited in the moment? 

See, the question why implies a layer behind the layer involved in the present discussion.  It asks for root causes, ulterior motives, goals, whatever you want to call them.  If I say, "Why did you get an A on that test," and your response is, "I answered over 90% of the questions correctly," your answer is worthless.  It's a restatement of something I already know or can infer.  It does not provide me with information I was asking after.

In romance, you need to know what you yourself want before you take the situation into account.  The situation isn't the most important thing.  If you haven't given us details on that, then at best, any advice we can give you will only be helpful through a happy coincidence.  It's like saying, "Hey, I have a patient here.  Please diagnose him, but I'm not going to let you actually see him.  I'm just going to describe his socioeconomic status rather than his actual symptoms."  You're not giving us the right information to come up with a coherent answer.

I don't know when Xanga turned into a game of parliamentary debate.  We don't exist to be fenced with.  If someone asks you a question either respond to the underlying issue, or don't bother responding.  If you don't even know what you want, asking others is a meaningless proposition.

This is your night,
Dancing free until the morning light
Together forever 'cause, this is your night
And everything is gonna be alright

- Amber, 'This Is Your Night'

The pros
- I am getting hit on at improbable times, which amuses me.
- Serious internet people think highly of me.  This is a big deal.
- I heard from AlabasterAndChrome!
- New clothes!

The cons
- I am spending way too much time in traffic.
- I can find neither CDs nor iPod, so I cannot listen to my music.
- Don't have enough time to do everything I want to do.
- I'm behind on doing a favor for AlabasterAndChrome
- People are still occasionally incomprehensible.
- I still cannot kill things by thinking about it, making a career as Yagami Light improbable.

The University of Leeds shows us how it's done:

Women who revealed around 40 per cent of their skin attracted twice as many men as those who covered up.  However, those who exposed any more than this also fared worse. Experts believe that showing too much flesh puts men off because it suggests they might be unfaithful.

But what's this?

The researchers took note of what female clubbers were wearing and how many times they were approached by men asking them to dance.

Well, gee, that couldn't miss any confounding variables, could it?  Like, say, how attractive the women were?

What they have revealed is not how to get men, but rather, that the attractive women at that particular nightclub (yes, only one was used) get results with ~40% skin showing.  There is nothing to say that 40% is optimal, because it could simply be that the more attractive women happened to be wearing 40% on average.  (Consider: if looks are more important than amount of skin shown, 40% could be heavily suboptimal and still be effective if the woman looks good.)

These are profound failures at the most basic level of reasoning.

In a sense, I consider this accurate.  From birth to death, man is meddling with forces he does not fully understand.  Our reflexive instinct is to excuse people because "they didn't think that would happen" or "they didn't know any better."  This means "it wasn't really their fault."

Of course, usually it isn't epic on the scale of a man-made storm.  Usually it's the quiet and deeply personal failure to love, to respect, to provide, or to keep promises.

EDIT: concept done in 2008 by another webcomic:

There are no overachievers.

If something can be achieved, it was within the realm of possibility to begin with.

There are, however, underachievers.