Thanks for pointing out mistakes in his explanation. This allows other readers to see his statement in another light. But why "mod him to oblivion"? He offers a remarkable story. Why should others not be able to judge for themselves (taking into account your own comment)?

Making the parent's remark even more to the point.

More to the point, how can the researchers assess which female rats are "babes" and which ones are fuglies.

Easy enough. The "pretty ones" are being fucked more than the ugly ones.

How would this be an easy way to get random numbers? Why not just sample an analog noise source? Admittedly, I wasn't even aware of this apparent need for random numbers and the difficulty of getting them.

You are completely correct in that. There is indeed a difference between knowledge (data) and reasoning. However, chances are that if you haven't got a clue whatsoever about numbers and orders of magnitude, that you won't reason very much either.

Most of the time when I read something related to physics, I like to do a rough calculation in my head to see if what is stated seems logical to me. Like how high the ocean level will rise when so many tons of ice melts on Antarctica, what efficiency can be reached with some new kind of solar cell (and whether this is spectacular or not), how long it would take an airliner to fly around the world, etc.

Strange enough, the hardware (pavement) turned my firmware into software, and it took a long time to recover.

... whenever I try to pull one out, I risk a heap dump.

Fortunately your book collection is in the bathroom.