Except he can't defend himself against someone who can continue to make post whether or not they are accurate.
He could spend every day., all day trying to defend each time a comment is made. That would be pretty wasteful. The person making the comment could actually go through normal peer review channels. BTW AC comment aren't actually peer review.
Have you ever tried to defend yourself against one or more people making AC comments? It is not possible.
But you can do many at the same time. What? you think when they get to the wait part while someone at the university reviews it they don't do anything? Same thing with papers.
"autism and vaccinations was a fraud and an abuse of the existing grant system." Nope. It was done to discredit current vaccine so they will use his new patent technique. Grants were irrelevant in that case.
If all you are doing is trying to abuse the grant system for money, then you would be better off working at walmart.
I see pattern hunting, and out of context images. If it was really an issue, you should be going through scientific channels. There are whole actual mechanism for dealing with this sort of thing, and they are more reliable then AC posting on a website.
There should be no penalties if you lose. That would have a horrible chilling effect. You should no, that loosing a suit you bring against someone doesn't mean you were wrong. It may just mean they had more expensive lawyers. The actual amount of frivolous lawsuits brought in the country(USA) isn't nearly as many as you think it is. Exaggerating that number is a common political move done by corporations who want to prevent people from suing. Mostly insurance companies.
"He'd have had to been publishing at least one paper every month for 30 years!" or, work on several papers with colleagues...you know, like what scientists do. I looked at the images I could find nothing that indicated any fraud.
Anonymous speech doesn't protect you against slander or libel. Sorry, but you can't go around making things up and lying and expect nothing to happen.
All I know about this is what I read in the articles. I am not accusing or defending anyone. I'm just pointing out that your comments, and many others, are about as valid as a testimony at the Salem witch trials.
I'm pleasantly surprised by the number of people in the article that basically said the same thing in both reviews. I couple of people magically changed their tunes with the Apple 6, but not as many as I thought.
" I said it was a branch of philosophy and it is." no, it is not. There is a philosophy of science,. but science isn't a branch of philosophy. In fact, in the modern era, philosophers have done more harm the good to science. And nearly every question regard modern science the philosophers bring up are outdated, moot, or not answerable by the nature of the question.
I to can quote wikipedia: "Philosophy of science explores the foundations, methods, implications, and purpose of science." Note: It in NO WAY determines what science is or is not.
So, yeah you can have people not smart enough to actual do science talk about science, but they have no real impact and just confuse the lay person.
"Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated. "
"Science is today's best guess." which is what Dr. Tyson says all the time. Yes, new data can change understanding but you need to have good data and not just wild ass ideas.
Common Core teaches mathematics correctly. I'e.' In a way that teaches yo to quickly do it in your head. I pity the people who are so mentally broken that don't realize that and don't understand that math is more the simple addition.
to believe that there is a "Philosophical question regarding the origin of the Universe." Is, in itself, a religion.
The question will matter the moment you can tell us why there is a reason for the origin of the universe we currently live in. "There is no proof, but it's a rational conclusion to believe that something did cause the Universe to exist. " I philosopher probably would say that, but that would be an another example of why they are useless hanger ons to the historical coat tails of science.
Yes, there is proof. We are walking around in it. And yes, atheists do understand the something caused it. But there is a lot of evidence showing it was a natural something, and zero evidence it was a bi-product of intent.
"The question regarding the origin of the Universe is just one question where bias takes charge and science is put in the background." False. there is a lot of sciecne regarding the origin of the universe. What we have is a bunch os people who get their panties in a bunch when it's pointed out there is zero evidence to support theire belief. Lets see: "Vaccines" The science is well know. The vast majority of public debate isn't about anything debatable. It's one side making things up and the other using science. i.e. expermint, data, ect.
"GMO foods" ON one side we ahve science, and verification from every major scientific health group in the world, that it is safe. On the other side you got FUD.
" Global Warming" ON side has science, prediction, proof, the other side has people screaming nonsense. Science and bias isn't why we can't have a rational debate. How would you have a rational debate with someone who claims 2+2 = 5. No natter how many time you showed them it equals 4, they refuse to change? What do you do when the blame the status quo for not accepting his theory?
"Anyone that dares to challenge the status quo is attacked and ostracized." False. challenge the status quo without good data is "attacked and ostracized." If you statement was true, science and out body of scientific knowledge wouldn't change, but it does change. Every day.
I am replying because it is wrong. Being wrong is not 'challenging the status quo' it's simple just wrong.
"While it is a fact that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads, all else equal, to higher atmospheric temperatures, the idea that we can predict the impact of global warming"
If he mean prediction, as in 'it will be exactly 2.5 degree warmer(and not even a fraction of degree off), well then yes. But that's because he is using an incorrect word. He should be saying forecast and not predict. Just so you know, the forecasting to date has been pretty good, and gets refined with new data.
"This is how you get the phenomenon of philistines like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne thinking science has made God irrelevant, " Richard Dawkins has said, many times, that he is as sure their is no god as a sane person can be. New evidence may change that. He does say that God is irrelevant in understanding the universe.
" by definition, religion concerns the ultimate causes of things and, again, by definition, science cannot tell you about them."
Religion does not concern itself with ultimate causes. That is complete nonsense. It concerns itself with following an unprovable tenant. Science can tell us about everything the religion claims has an effect.
" Both of them think science is like magic" Please point to something that lets us know Dr. Tyson thinks science is magic? listen to the man every week, and I can't think of an example.
And yes, economics is a science. It makes prediction. I've seen economic principles applied to scientific fields.
He seems to thing science makes predictions. That is incorrect. There is a lot to science. In best case, it's make predictions. But gathering data is science, deriving forecast is science. I wonder if he knows prediction have error bars?
I have, and I"m friends with many of them. They use jargon in the field of expertise because it's specific and accurate.
"A lot of everyday science is NOT hard," If it is accurate and high quality, yes, it is hard.
I have done science with 10 year olds. IT's funny, but not exactly a high level quality. Kids not only have biases, they will also say what they think you want to hear.
BTW: All the scientist I know do not suck at other things. IN fact, they have a lot of interests there very knowledgeable.
And by scientist, I mean people paid to do science.
Slashdot Mirror
Except he can't defend himself against someone who can continue to make post whether or not they are accurate.
He could spend every day., all day trying to defend each time a comment is made. That would be pretty wasteful.
The person making the comment could actually go through normal peer review channels.
BTW AC comment aren't actually peer review.
Have you ever tried to defend yourself against one or more people making AC comments? It is not possible.
You would to find out who your accusers are. You know, and important bit of american legal system.
He isn't suing to have the post pulled, he is suing to find out who he needs to defend himself against.
But you can do many at the same time.
What? you think when they get to the wait part while someone at the university reviews it they don't do anything?
Same thing with papers.
"autism and vaccinations was a fraud and an abuse of the existing grant system."
Nope. It was done to discredit current vaccine so they will use his new patent technique.
Grants were irrelevant in that case.
If all you are doing is trying to abuse the grant system for money, then you would be better off working at walmart.
" which already consumes more of our lives than would be considered reasonable in non-academic jobs."
Don't bet on it.
Unless I missed something, he is suing to find out who is spreading lies against him. From his perspective.
Really, if someone is spreading lies about you and disrupting your lively hood, you should be able to defend yourself.
I see pattern hunting, and out of context images.
If it was really an issue, you should be going through scientific channels. There are whole actual mechanism for dealing with this sort of thing, and they are more reliable then AC posting on a website.
Except that's not the issue.
The issue is, just the spike in comments, even with no evidence, cost him his tenure. Not actual scientific rebuttal.
This is equivalent to someone calling you work every hour until you boss gets fed up and lets you go.
If it's SLAPP then no.
There should be no penalties if you lose. That would have a horrible chilling effect. You should no, that loosing a suit you bring against someone doesn't mean you were wrong. It may just mean they had more expensive lawyers.
The actual amount of frivolous lawsuits brought in the country(USA) isn't nearly as many as you think it is. Exaggerating that number is a common political move done by corporations who want to prevent people from suing. Mostly insurance companies.
"He'd have had to been publishing at least one paper every month for 30 years!"
or, work on several papers with colleagues...you know, like what scientists do.
I looked at the images I could find nothing that indicated any fraud.
Anonymous speech doesn't protect you against slander or libel.
Sorry, but you can't go around making things up and lying and expect nothing to happen.
All I know about this is what I read in the articles. I am not accusing or defending anyone. I'm just pointing out that your comments, and many others, are about as valid as a testimony at the Salem witch trials.
Hipster doesn't like new thing. News at 11.
Actually, you should read it. Most of the ones that didn't like a previous phone for being to big don't like the Apple 6's size.
I'm pleasantly surprised by the number of people in the article that basically said the same thing in both reviews. I couple of people magically changed their tunes with the Apple 6, but not as many as I thought.
" I said it was a branch of philosophy and it is."
no, it is not. There is a philosophy of science,. but science isn't a branch of philosophy.
In fact, in the modern era, philosophers have done more harm the good to science.
And nearly every question regard modern science the philosophers bring up are outdated, moot, or not answerable by the nature of the question.
I to can quote wikipedia:
"Philosophy of science explores the foundations, methods, implications, and purpose of science."
Note: It in NO WAY determines what science is or is not.
So, yeah you can have people not smart enough to actual do science talk about science, but they have no real impact and just confuse the lay person.
As a note: Philosophy was my first major.
Bayesian statistic is an important. and seldom used, part of a study.
"Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
" Science has no heroes,"
False. It absolutely does have scientific heros.
" and hero worship has no place in science. "
Sure it does. In fact, it can be a way to get people interested in science.
If you replace hero with demagoguery, then I would agree.
I have heros in science, becasue they did great things and in some case, change what they did because the data showed them they where wrong.
He talks about is person experience with Carl Sagan. Briefly.
"Science is today's best guess."
which is what Dr. Tyson says all the time. Yes, new data can change understanding but you need to have good data and not just wild ass ideas.
Theire is in that the lay speaker could go on to learn about that science.
I am begining to think very few people actual know what cargo cult means
Common Core teaches mathematics correctly. I'e.' In a way that teaches yo to quickly do it in your head.
I pity the people who are so mentally broken that don't realize that and don't understand that math is more the simple addition.
So all the lab test proving that CO2 absorbs IR wavelength in a predictable way are wrong?
to believe that there is a "Philosophical question regarding the origin of the Universe." Is, in itself, a religion.
The question will matter the moment you can tell us why there is a reason for the origin of the universe we currently live in.
"There is no proof, but it's a rational conclusion to believe that something did cause the Universe to exist. "
I philosopher probably would say that, but that would be an another example of why they are useless hanger ons to the historical coat tails of science.
Yes, there is proof. We are walking around in it. And yes, atheists do understand the something caused it. But there is a lot of evidence showing it was a natural something, and zero evidence it was a bi-product of intent.
"The question regarding the origin of the Universe is just one question where bias takes charge and science is put in the background."
False. there is a lot of sciecne regarding the origin of the universe. What we have is a bunch os people who get their panties in a bunch when it's pointed out there is zero evidence to support theire belief.
Lets see:
"Vaccines"
The science is well know. The vast majority of public debate isn't about anything debatable. It's one side making things up and the other using science. i.e. expermint, data, ect.
"GMO foods"
ON one side we ahve science, and verification from every major scientific health group in the world, that it is safe. On the other side you got FUD.
" Global Warming"
ON side has science, prediction, proof, the other side has people screaming nonsense.
Science and bias isn't why we can't have a rational debate.
How would you have a rational debate with someone who claims 2+2 = 5. No natter how many time you showed them it equals 4, they refuse to change? What do you do when the blame the status quo for not accepting his theory?
"Anyone that dares to challenge the status quo is attacked and ostracized."
False. challenge the status quo without good data is "attacked and ostracized." If you statement was true, science and out body of scientific knowledge wouldn't change, but it does change. Every day.
I am replying because it is wrong. Being wrong is not 'challenging the status quo' it's simple just wrong.
Except he is wrong on several points.
"While it is a fact that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads, all else equal, to higher atmospheric temperatures, the idea that we can predict the impact of global warming"
If he mean prediction, as in 'it will be exactly 2.5 degree warmer(and not even a fraction of degree off), well then yes. But that's because he is using an incorrect word. He should be saying forecast and not predict. Just so you know, the forecasting to date has been pretty good, and gets refined with new data.
"This is how you get the phenomenon of philistines like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne thinking science has made God irrelevant, "
Richard Dawkins has said, many times, that he is as sure their is no god as a sane person can be. New evidence may change that. He does say that God is irrelevant in understanding the universe.
" by definition, religion concerns the ultimate causes of things and, again, by definition, science cannot tell you about them."
Religion does not concern itself with ultimate causes. That is complete nonsense. It concerns itself with following an unprovable tenant.
Science can tell us about everything the religion claims has an effect.
" Both of them think science is like magic"
Please point to something that lets us know Dr. Tyson thinks science is magic? listen to the man every week, and I can't think of an example.
And yes, economics is a science. It makes prediction. I've seen economic principles applied to scientific fields.
He seems to thing science makes predictions. That is incorrect. There is a lot to science. In best case, it's make predictions. But gathering data is science, deriving forecast is science.
I wonder if he knows prediction have error bars?
Alternative: the summary is poorly written.
BTW: the summary is poorly written.
"but most of our 'pro-science' people are really pro-magic (and therefore anti-science). ""
Nonsense.
Not understanding how science works doesn't make one pro magic.
I have, and I"m friends with many of them.
They use jargon in the field of expertise because it's specific and accurate.
"A lot of everyday science is NOT hard,"
If it is accurate and high quality, yes, it is hard.
I have done science with 10 year olds. IT's funny, but not exactly a high level quality. Kids not only have biases, they will also say what they think you want to hear.
BTW: All the scientist I know do not suck at other things. IN fact, they have a lot of interests there very knowledgeable.
And by scientist, I mean people paid to do science.