I have to say, I disagree with Jenny’s post, and I’m going to disprove the alternative hypothesis for eight minutes.
Richard P Grant
Scientist, poet, gadfly
Creator and sustainer of
Occam's Typewriteremail: rpgrant at gmail.com
twitter: @rpg7twit
home: rg-d.com-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Our House | Confessions of a (former) Lab Rat on Three Little Birds
- rpg on We need medicine
- Henry on We need medicine
- rpg on Sweet home Alabama
- Henry Gee on Sweet home Alabama
- rpg on Sweet home Alabama
- Austin Elliott on Sweet home Alabama
- rpg on The Times They Are A-Changin’
- Henry on The Times They Are A-Changin’
- rpg on The Times They Are A-Changin’
Archives
Categories
- A momentary lapse of reason
- Art
- Birds
- Careers
- Don't try this at home
- ethics
- F1000
- Friday afternoon
- Funding
- Gardening
- Guest posts
- Homeopathy
- Ill-considered rants
- Internet
- Lab ratting
- Literature
- London
- Magirism
- Me
- meta
- Music
- Nature
- Nonsense
- Office life
- Offspring
- Penguins
- People
- Personal
- Photography
- Politics
- Public Engagement
- Rants
- Science
- Science is Vital
- Science-less Sunday
- Scio11
- Shooting
- Shopping lists
- Silliness
- Talks
- The stupid, it burns
- Uncategorized
- Video
- wank
- War stories
- wibbling
- Work
- you
Meta
I have disproved the null hypothesis that no-one will groan at this post.
(I was going to make a d’oh / dough pun, but I see you beat me to it)
I have no idea what you Brits (and ex-pat Brits) are on about.
Yeast works by creating little bubbles of CO2-filled gluten. Proving, then, is the formation of these bubbles. Disproving must therefore be the destruction of said bubbles. The person who does this is called a Popper.
😀
Ouch.