Didn't Hate Week sate your hatred? You know, the week after she died when you had hate parades to show just how much you hated her. No, seriously, this really happened. Hate parades.
Haters need a daily Five Minutes of Hate as part of a balanced diet.
Am bored of this now. No need for an objective definition of consensus. It is patently clear unless you squint really really hard in the opposite direction that the two statements:
1. "many doctors believed smoking was not harmful to health" and
2. "an overwhelming majority of doctors believed smoking was not harmful to health"
mean materially different things. It is also clear that 2 is synonymous with the statement:
3. "there was a consensus among doctors that smoking was not harmful to health" but that 1 and 3 are not synonymous.
Are you really going to dispute ordinary meanings of ordinary words any further? What on earth for?
I'm objecting to the use of what appears to be a subjective standard for science. Is reality objective or not?
"Many" can mean anything from large absolute # with a small overall %, to 51%, to 100%. The choice of (1) makes (2) unlikely, but not impossible. The article has not provided numbers, only the author's interpretation of the numbers. (1) and (3) are not synonymous, but if (3) was true, (1) is true. That (1) is true does not make (3) false.
I'm not interested in using that to prove that there was a past consensus on smoking's effect on health; I'm interested in a clear description of the standard you're using. What makes an overwhelming majority?
If there's no objective definition - then how is it scientific? What "overwhelming" majority of "scientists" decided on this "consensus" standard?
I really really can't be arsed to explain to you what I meant by allocative efficiency in this context. You'll have to live with that frustration.
Which is indistinguishable from it being wrong and you unwilling to admit it. I'm not saying you're wrong - just that the current state of discussion isn't frustrating me.
No, "many" is not a consensus. A consensus means, in practice, an overwhelming majority. I hope that helps.
Would you like to create an objective standard for "overwhelming"?
66%? 75%? 90%?
"Overwhelming majority" is also a subset of "many" - so we'll need that specific definition to say what was or was not accepted by consensus in the past.
Also - how much current science is accepted by "overwhelming majority"? Who are you polling?
And you still don't understand what I meant by allocative efficiency.
Wiki: "Allocative efficiency is a type of economic efficiency in which economy/producers produce only those types of goods and services that are more desirable in the society and also in high demand."
Allocative efficiency is a tendency, not an absolute law. You can use the observation that something is attracting a lot of resources to say that it is probably correct. It is insufficient to say that it is correct - because there are many many ways resources can be allocated.
If that's still not close to what you meant, please elaborate.
You're arguing against yourself, because I've never raised the notion of there not being unquestionable settled science. I've simply said that where there is strong consensus in science, people are going to be interested in pushing ahead with building on that consensus and very reluctant to reexamine the fundamentals based on a single study purporting to show they're all wrong. Things that make the latter more likely are the reputation of the authors, reviewers and publication, the credibility of any replacement theory including its ability to explain previous results, etc etc.
I'm arguing that there is no place in science for the term "settled science". "Settled" implies finality - and thus should not be used for a field of knowledge where everything is provisional. "Until someone disproves this, this is our best guess at what's happening"
Scientific research that is backed by good data and accurate models doesn't care what you label it- because reality doesn't care what individuals believe - align your beliefs with reality or do not, reality will continue on.
Science that isn't backed by good data and research can use the term "settled science" to attack and discredit contrary evidence and research - and that ultimately hurts the reputation of and practice of science.
You've misunderstood what I meant by allocative efficiency. It doesn't involve payment. Never mind.
Payment is how resources get allocated. No one does science for free. Payment isn't just monetary compensation, though it plays a big part.
There was no such consensus about smoking being good for you. That's a myth. The tobacco industry drove a particular view in their self-interest, but the evidence contradicted them - the former is not science, the latter is. Here's a nuanced reading. You'll note that the epidemiological studies were only conducted in the late 50s, so it wasn't about contradictory evidence as about the first credible evidence on the subject. http://www.healio.com/hematolo...
From your article: "Many physicians still doubted that there was a wide-spread connection between smoking and disease. Instead it was believed that only certain individuals' health was affected by smoking; it was thought to be a case-by-case situation. "
Is "many" not a consensus? It wasn't "smoking good for you", but it is not the same consensus as we have today.
Consensus has value as a starting point for research- it just shouldn't be used as a pre-filter to discredit dissent - "He doesn't believe in the consensus! Ignore him!" I think any use of "settled science" is going to devolve into just that line of attack and thus undermines the scientific process.
And here speaks someone for whom ideology has transmuted into idiocy. Soundbites like "all scientific results are one study for being disproven" are a substitute for actual thinking. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of studies into the link between cancer and smoking. One study purporting to have evidence to the contrary would have, to put it politely, extremely limited impact in overturning the scientific consensus in this area.
Do you think science is determined by mass voting?
How many experiments confirmed Newtonian physics? Did that matter when quantam physics were discovered?
it does't change the fact that scientists like to invest their time in credible work, and by-and-large won't waste effort on things that are in all probability wrong, artefactual or the products of misguided kookery on the off-chance that they might just be right. Allocative efficiency.
So because scientists are paid for their work, they're probably right. Do you realize what you're saying here? You concede a possibility that they're wrong - which undermines the entire idea of there being unquestionable "settled" science.
You realize that before the consensus that smoking causes cancer, there was a consensus that smoking was good for you, and that it was even marketed by doctors? Per your logic, that won't happen - but it did.
But saying "look, I've shown that the link between smoking and lung cancer" is real would be greeted with a yawn and saying "look, I've shown the link is false" would be met with "what a pile of bollocks".
If the data backs up "look I've shown the link is false", you'd be anti-scientific to ignore the study. Does ignoring evidence in favor of what you already believe sound like the scientific process to you? It may be justified; but ignoring evidence and practicing science do not go together.
All scientific results are one study from being disproven. At best, you can say that the previous model was limited and holds true under certain conditions. (ex: Newtonian physics being "good enough" for objects traveling far beneath the speed of light)
So, my personal belief that something is untrue without regard to evidence for or against is not unscientific, but expecting data is dogmatic and therefore for religions? Okay, then...
If you only allow people to question science after you've carefully examined their motivations and beliefs, yes, you're transforming science into a dogmatic belief system. The post I responded to mentioned nothing about data or evidence - only beliefs.
"Questioning science" because it doesn't fit my model of reality is not unscientific. That is, the personal motivation does not inhibit the use of the scientific process to gain and generate new knowledge. The motivation is not scientific either; it's neutral.
You didn't answer the question. Is science a set of beliefs, or a process?
Think of what it means to teach someone math - is someone proficient with addition because they believe 1+1 = 2, or because they can add two arbitrary numbers? Science is more than believing that humans are the cause of GW, or that evolution took X million/billion years to form life as we know it. A scientist does more than just believe things, no?
As far as "accepted truth" - the only truth in science is the list of claims that are not true (because they've been contradicted by reality). And sometimes even that list is inaccurate due to poor scientific methodology.
I think you're using a different definition of "settled" than most people.
Claiming the science is settled isn't an attempt to shut down the scientific process, it's generally attempt to move past the few remaining people who won't or can't accept the consensus even when they are unable provide any solid reasons for their objections. Effectively, the science is settled when the majority becomes tired of listening to arguments that have already been examined and found lacking.
People are free to continue investigating the settled science, but it's usually more worthwhile to focus on the areas which aren't already well-establish and well-supported by the evidence.
"Move past" to what? Claiming the science is settled is trying to get people to believe a conclusion because there's "consensus" and lack of controversy.
Do you think science is a process, or a specific set of beliefs?
Not really. That may happen occasionally but mostly it's about efficiency. If something is settled in science, that is if few the practitioners are debating that aspect any more, it would be a waste of resources to expend much effort on it. That said a few contrarians is probably a good thing to keep the rest honest.
Efficiency of what? People who ask the questions, and (optionally) propose alternative answers, are practicing the scientific process.
Shutting down those questions in the name of "settled science" is to destroy science as a process, and transform it into a belief system. Is science trying to be a religion?
Science is a tool, a map of knowledge of reality. No one tries to create a "settled map" the way people try to do for science. If someone wants to redraw a map, it doesn't magically destroy the map you have; and it's possible that their map may end up more accurate or useful, or can even be combined with your existing map to synthesize a better one.
As long as questioning the settled science remains "Here's some interesting data that doesn't seem to fit the models. What do you make of this?" and not "The models violate my personal view of the universe and must be untrue." you are absolutely right.
There's nothing innately wrong or unscientific about holding the latter position. Everyone develops a model and view of the universe that they use to assimilate new knowledge.
If you're going to put a questioner's beliefs under the microscope before questioning science, you're doing exactly what you're decrying. "Your question violates my personal view of the universe and shall be ignored."
This response completely ignores the validity of the question on the basis of personal beliefs. This is dogma, and dogma is for religions. If science is not religion, then the process has to be agnostic to personal beliefs.
Not a result. Thus, attempts to claim that the science is settled are attempts to shut down the scientific process.
If the results of the scientific process are good, they're reproducible, and there's no point in trying to build up a religious dogma of belief on something that simply is.
Questioning the "settled science" is science. Shut it down at the cost of shutting down science.
I kinda like to know that if I pay a premium for a newly released game, that it is "worth" it and that it is not going to be on a sale for the fraction of the price a week later. It ruins the value of a product because it shows the product has no inherit price but is rather just a charge put on the product for the sake of it.
Welcome to the reality of economic value. There is no inherent value to any game. It's worth a subjective amount to each person, and it's up to the companies how they want to chase those consumer dollars - whether by setting a single price or using sales to hit a broader section of the demand curve. .
You really shouldn't treat your entertainment dollars as an "investment" - becaues it isn't. There is no lasting value for spending $60 on Super Mario Brothers or $30 for Skyrim.
Teachers who grade on a curve don't understand what a GPA is meant to represent.
Or they're choosing to use material that is more difficult than most of the students can handle, so the top students can better stand out with their mastery of the material.
As a side benefit, it reminds the "A" students that however smart they think they are, they're still pretty dumb.
Repeat: go look at the LAW. Not the Post Office's comment about the law. The LAW says that if someone sends you merchandise you did not order, they cannot then charge you for that merchandise.
(b) Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender.
And what does the law define as "unordered merchandise"?
For the purposes of this section, "unordered merchandise" means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.
Perhaps we're looking at different texts. Does the one you're looking at say anything different? Note that the one I found is based off of the legal code cited by the USPS FAQ.
Also realize that if the PS Vita is not "unordered merchandise", then the company would by your interpretation have the legal right to bill the recipient - even though that's not what the recipient ordered. Do you think that's the correct application of this law - people getting billed for merchandise the company mistakenly shipped to them?
Your mistaken impressions are not the law. I hate to burst your bubble, but I will repeat one more time: a goof on a mail-order purchase is not a "free gift". You're dreaming.
Legally, it is. The company is prohibited from billing you for it. The law designates it as a gift. That means the company cannot confiscate it, or demand compensation for it.
Practically, it is a gift, as the recipient is given the decision what to do with it. It may not be intended as a gift, and a moral person may decide to mail it back for that reason, but the law does not make room for intentions in this particular situation.
"Try this: you agree to buy a Sony webcam from somebody, and they accidentally give you a Fuji DSLR instead. When the mistake is discovered, they ask for the return of the DSLR."
If it was done in person, they can ask for it, the recipient can refuse, and they can go to court over it, and there will be a long discussion over what exact contract was agreed to, and how to resolve it.
Since it was done by mail, the law is in effect, and while they can go to court over it, the law does say that the unordered package is an unconditional gift - which means the giver no longer has a legal claim to the item in question.
This is NOT some stranger who just handed you merchandise. It was a customer-authorized transaction that went awry. They are not even remotely the same.
The customer authorized sending a particular good. The customer did not authorize sending the PS Vita, and absent something in the signed sales contract "authorizing" wrong packages, the law would judge it to be an unconditional gift.
On the plus side, this isn't exactly going to be common regardless of the law. Giving away expensive unordered merchandise isn't how you build a profitable business.
Just remove the USPS and imagine same scenario with them personally delivering the box to you to see the absurdity.
The "absurdity" exists precisely if the USPS is involved and a consumer friendly and business-unfriendly law was put on the books to combat a type of mail fraud.
The law as worded is designed to minimize hassle to the recipient; they do not need to take any type of legal action to blow off unasked for goods; legally, it's theirs, period.
"Hi, YYY Shop here, here's the package you ordered!"
"Let's check... Hey, I ordered A, but this is B! You guys go away, I'm keeping this."
Try this: A stranger gives you a box without comment. You open the box, and find that there's something valuable inside. The stranger demands the box back or compensation.
With no communication at all when the goods were given to the recipient - what type of contract is this? Was it a conditional gift or unconditional gift, or just an offer to take a look at the contents of the box? Legally, what should happen?
In the case of postal items just getting dropped off at your residence, - lawmakers decided to clarify that such a situation is always an unconditional gift absent an explicit contract saying otherwise. (express consent)
If the purchase contract for the originally ordered goods contained a clause that the purchaser acknowledges that any wrong items shipped in the process were still the property of the retailers - then that could be considered explicit consent to receive the unordered goods for the purposes of that law. Otherwise, the law is clear that it's the recipient's.
The customers that TFA is about ORDERED merchandise to the company. The company MISTAKENLY sent them the wrong merchandise.
That is not "intent to defraud". Unless it can be shown that it was done intentionally (for example, if they they tried to charge for the wrong item).
There is nothing in the law about "intent to defraud". Now the law exists because of past fraud, but the enforcement of the law is based on what it says, not what you think is more fair/reasonable.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/39/3009
For the purposes of this section, âoeunordered merchandiseâ means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.
Did the recipient expressly request or consent to being shipped a PS Vita? No. The company could try bargaining - return it for store credit and free stuff, perhaps - but legally, they would have no recourse if it happened in US jurisdiction.
So I figured it was mine for the taking, and it was. So I put it in my bag with my other laptop. Now at this point, I felt bad, as if I should do whatever was in my power to get this back to the unlucky fool.
You should have felt bad. You removed the laptop from its original location and were intending to keep it. Whether or not someone else would have stolen it, you were the one who stole it.
It is good that it found its way back to its owner, so you can feel good about that. And hopefully the lady learned something about not leaving devices unsupervised.
What should also be noted is that the US has basically the same legal framework. For all the parroting of the USPS advice on unsolicited gifts it's very noticeable that no one has mentioned the FTC's advice (write and offer to return it): http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0181-unordered-merchandise nor come up with an example of someone who got sued for refusing to return something that was clearly a shipping error.
Read the FTC's FAQ more carefully. Top of the list:
Q. Am I obligated to return or pay for merchandise I never ordered?
A. No. If you receive merchandise that you didn't order, you have a legal right to keep it as a free gift.
So - unordered? It's a simple Yes/No question - proven with the existence of an invoice. If it's unordered, it's legally a gift.
Writing to offer and return it is good advice, but you'll note that there are no legal penalties listed for not doing so - you'd be doing it out of the goodness of your heart. (And perhaps to preserve the business relationship)
Nothing of the sort. The "unsolicited merchandise" law is a law against unfair (anti-cimpetitive) trade practices. In order for it to be an anti-cimpetitive "trade practice" it has to be a trade practice. In other words, something you did on purpose.
INTENT is a big part of the law. You should look the word up some time.
They showed the intent to send an unsolicited package by paying a shipping company to send an un-ordered product to the receiver's home.
How else did the shipping company know to ship that package to that address - except by a specific shipment ordered by the retailer? That they should not have done that does not change the FACT that they did. Did the receiver solicit a PS Vita? No? Unsolicited.
It's certainly good to go above and beyond the law in rectifying honest mistakes, but don't read qualifications into the law that don't exist.
The fact that your insurance company decided to drop that that plan and only offer you a worse one, which is something they COULD HAVE DONE AT ANY TIME ANYWAY, is just down to your insurance company being douches, not a fault of the AHA or Obama.
And yet it wasn't canceled until now. Clearly a conspiracy against Obama, which is why he suddenly said he was issuing 1 year waivers for insurance plans, despite that never being in the "Affordable" Care Act.
Extra credit: research Internet Explorer and Spyglass. (Short story: Microsoft wakes up and smells the Internet, OMG! it's not just a 'fad' and it's not going away. Mac and Unix already have mature browsers, and third parties have browsers on Windows. Do something! Find a company making an internet browser on Windows. Enter Spyglass which makes the Spyglass browser. Spyglass wants some money. Microsoft negotiates with them to buy it for $100,000 up front, with a royalty percent of all sales. Guess how many copies of Internet Explorer that Microsoft 'sells' ? What does a royalty rate multiplied by zero work out to?)
A bad business decision by Spyglass does not make MS evil. MS paid them the money mutually agreed upon. The contract did not demand MS price the browser, nor did it provide provisions to handle bundling the browser for free.
You also seem to be mis-remembering some details. Per wiki, the browser was not purchased, but licensed with quarterly fees + royalties (with the royalties ending up at 0). That tells you they had an ongoing licensing contract that could be re-negotiated if Spyglass was unsatisfied with the contract. (though with no guarantee of a better result)
Or Microsoft backstabbing their partner IBM?
IBM was the Evil Empire back when MS was still a startup launched from a garage. So the claim that IBM was backstabbed doesn't seem likely. Care to elaborate?
Now the examples you cite are excellent examples to be very careful when doing business with MS, but that's a different level than "evil". MS hasn't sacrificed any babies or murdered anyone that I know of; and while some of their products have been horribly bad, the use of their products is still voluntary.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't Hate Week sate your hatred? You know, the week after she died when you had hate parades to show just how much you hated her. No, seriously, this really happened. Hate parades.
Haters need a daily Five Minutes of Hate as part of a balanced diet.
Am bored of this now. No need for an objective definition of consensus. It is patently clear unless you squint really really hard in the opposite direction that the two statements:
1. "many doctors believed smoking was not harmful to health" and
2. "an overwhelming majority of doctors believed smoking was not harmful to health" mean materially different things. It is also clear that 2 is synonymous with the statement:
3. "there was a consensus among doctors that smoking was not harmful to health" but that 1 and 3 are not synonymous.
Are you really going to dispute ordinary meanings of ordinary words any further? What on earth for?
I'm objecting to the use of what appears to be a subjective standard for science. Is reality objective or not?
"Many" can mean anything from large absolute # with a small overall %, to 51%, to 100%. The choice of (1) makes (2) unlikely, but not impossible. The article has not provided numbers, only the author's interpretation of the numbers. (1) and (3) are not synonymous, but if (3) was true, (1) is true. That (1) is true does not make (3) false.
I'm not interested in using that to prove that there was a past consensus on smoking's effect on health; I'm interested in a clear description of the standard you're using. What makes an overwhelming majority?
If there's no objective definition - then how is it scientific? What "overwhelming" majority of "scientists" decided on this "consensus" standard?
I really really can't be arsed to explain to you what I meant by allocative efficiency in this context. You'll have to live with that frustration.
Which is indistinguishable from it being wrong and you unwilling to admit it. I'm not saying you're wrong - just that the current state of discussion isn't frustrating me.
No, "many" is not a consensus. A consensus means, in practice, an overwhelming majority. I hope that helps.
Would you like to create an objective standard for "overwhelming"?
66%? 75%? 90%?
"Overwhelming majority" is also a subset of "many" - so we'll need that specific definition to say what was or was not accepted by consensus in the past.
Also - how much current science is accepted by "overwhelming majority"? Who are you polling?
And you still don't understand what I meant by allocative efficiency.
Wiki: "Allocative efficiency is a type of economic efficiency in which economy/producers produce only those types of goods and services that are more desirable in the society and also in high demand."
Allocative efficiency is a tendency, not an absolute law. You can use the observation that something is attracting a lot of resources to say that it is probably correct. It is insufficient to say that it is correct - because there are many many ways resources can be allocated.
If that's still not close to what you meant, please elaborate.
You're arguing against yourself, because I've never raised the notion of there not being unquestionable settled science. I've simply said that where there is strong consensus in science, people are going to be interested in pushing ahead with building on that consensus and very reluctant to reexamine the fundamentals based on a single study purporting to show they're all wrong. Things that make the latter more likely are the reputation of the authors, reviewers and publication, the credibility of any replacement theory including its ability to explain previous results, etc etc.
I'm arguing that there is no place in science for the term "settled science". "Settled" implies finality - and thus should not be used for a field of knowledge where everything is provisional. "Until someone disproves this, this is our best guess at what's happening"
Scientific research that is backed by good data and accurate models doesn't care what you label it- because reality doesn't care what individuals believe - align your beliefs with reality or do not, reality will continue on.
Science that isn't backed by good data and research can use the term "settled science" to attack and discredit contrary evidence and research - and that ultimately hurts the reputation of and practice of science.
You've misunderstood what I meant by allocative efficiency. It doesn't involve payment. Never mind.
Payment is how resources get allocated. No one does science for free. Payment isn't just monetary compensation, though it plays a big part.
There was no such consensus about smoking being good for you. That's a myth. The tobacco industry drove a particular view in their self-interest, but the evidence contradicted them - the former is not science, the latter is. Here's a nuanced reading. You'll note that the epidemiological studies were only conducted in the late 50s, so it wasn't about contradictory evidence as about the first credible evidence on the subject. http://www.healio.com/hematolo...
From your article: "Many physicians still doubted that there was a wide-spread connection between smoking and disease. Instead it was believed that only certain individuals' health was affected by smoking; it was thought to be a case-by-case situation. "
Is "many" not a consensus? It wasn't "smoking good for you", but it is not the same consensus as we have today.
Consensus has value as a starting point for research- it just shouldn't be used as a pre-filter to discredit dissent - "He doesn't believe in the consensus! Ignore him!" I think any use of "settled science" is going to devolve into just that line of attack and thus undermines the scientific process.
And here speaks someone for whom ideology has transmuted into idiocy. Soundbites like "all scientific results are one study for being disproven" are a substitute for actual thinking. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of studies into the link between cancer and smoking. One study purporting to have evidence to the contrary would have, to put it politely, extremely limited impact in overturning the scientific consensus in this area.
Do you think science is determined by mass voting?
How many experiments confirmed Newtonian physics? Did that matter when quantam physics were discovered?
it does't change the fact that scientists like to invest their time in credible work, and by-and-large won't waste effort on things that are in all probability wrong, artefactual or the products of misguided kookery on the off-chance that they might just be right. Allocative efficiency.
So because scientists are paid for their work, they're probably right. Do you realize what you're saying here? You concede a possibility that they're wrong - which undermines the entire idea of there being unquestionable "settled" science.
You realize that before the consensus that smoking causes cancer, there was a consensus that smoking was good for you, and that it was even marketed by doctors? Per your logic, that won't happen - but it did.
But saying "look, I've shown that the link between smoking and lung cancer" is real would be greeted with a yawn and saying "look, I've shown the link is false" would be met with "what a pile of bollocks".
If the data backs up "look I've shown the link is false", you'd be anti-scientific to ignore the study. Does ignoring evidence in favor of what you already believe sound like the scientific process to you? It may be justified; but ignoring evidence and practicing science do not go together.
All scientific results are one study from being disproven. At best, you can say that the previous model was limited and holds true under certain conditions. (ex: Newtonian physics being "good enough" for objects traveling far beneath the speed of light)
So, my personal belief that something is untrue without regard to evidence for or against is not unscientific, but expecting data is dogmatic and therefore for religions? Okay, then...
If you only allow people to question science after you've carefully examined their motivations and beliefs, yes, you're transforming science into a dogmatic belief system. The post I responded to mentioned nothing about data or evidence - only beliefs.
"Questioning science" because it doesn't fit my model of reality is not unscientific. That is, the personal motivation does not inhibit the use of the scientific process to gain and generate new knowledge. The motivation is not scientific either; it's neutral.
You can't stand on the shoulders of giants if you insist on always attacking their knees.
Which has nothing to do with accepting "settled science" as true, which is seperate from being ignorant of what the "settled science" is.
You didn't answer the question. Is science a set of beliefs, or a process?
Think of what it means to teach someone math - is someone proficient with addition because they believe 1+1 = 2, or because they can add two arbitrary numbers? Science is more than believing that humans are the cause of GW, or that evolution took X million/billion years to form life as we know it. A scientist does more than just believe things, no?
As far as "accepted truth" - the only truth in science is the list of claims that are not true (because they've been contradicted by reality). And sometimes even that list is inaccurate due to poor scientific methodology.
I think you're using a different definition of "settled" than most people.
Claiming the science is settled isn't an attempt to shut down the scientific process, it's generally attempt to move past the few remaining people who won't or can't accept the consensus even when they are unable provide any solid reasons for their objections. Effectively, the science is settled when the majority becomes tired of listening to arguments that have already been examined and found lacking.
People are free to continue investigating the settled science, but it's usually more worthwhile to focus on the areas which aren't already well-establish and well-supported by the evidence.
"Move past" to what? Claiming the science is settled is trying to get people to believe a conclusion because there's "consensus" and lack of controversy.
Do you think science is a process, or a specific set of beliefs?
Not really. That may happen occasionally but mostly it's about efficiency. If something is settled in science, that is if few the practitioners are debating that aspect any more, it would be a waste of resources to expend much effort on it. That said a few contrarians is probably a good thing to keep the rest honest.
Efficiency of what? People who ask the questions, and (optionally) propose alternative answers, are practicing the scientific process.
Shutting down those questions in the name of "settled science" is to destroy science as a process, and transform it into a belief system. Is science trying to be a religion?
Science is a tool, a map of knowledge of reality. No one tries to create a "settled map" the way people try to do for science. If someone wants to redraw a map, it doesn't magically destroy the map you have; and it's possible that their map may end up more accurate or useful, or can even be combined with your existing map to synthesize a better one.
As long as questioning the settled science remains "Here's some interesting data that doesn't seem to fit the models. What do you make of this?" and not "The models violate my personal view of the universe and must be untrue." you are absolutely right.
There's nothing innately wrong or unscientific about holding the latter position. Everyone develops a model and view of the universe that they use to assimilate new knowledge.
If you're going to put a questioner's beliefs under the microscope before questioning science, you're doing exactly what you're decrying. "Your question violates my personal view of the universe and shall be ignored."
This response completely ignores the validity of the question on the basis of personal beliefs. This is dogma, and dogma is for religions. If science is not religion, then the process has to be agnostic to personal beliefs.
Not a result. Thus, attempts to claim that the science is settled are attempts to shut down the scientific process.
If the results of the scientific process are good, they're reproducible, and there's no point in trying to build up a religious dogma of belief on something that simply is.
Questioning the "settled science" is science. Shut it down at the cost of shutting down science.
I kinda like to know that if I pay a premium for a newly released game, that it is "worth" it and that it is not going to be on a sale for the fraction of the price a week later. It ruins the value of a product because it shows the product has no inherit price but is rather just a charge put on the product for the sake of it.
Welcome to the reality of economic value. There is no inherent value to any game. It's worth a subjective amount to each person, and it's up to the companies how they want to chase those consumer dollars - whether by setting a single price or using sales to hit a broader section of the demand curve. .
You really shouldn't treat your entertainment dollars as an "investment" - becaues it isn't. There is no lasting value for spending $60 on Super Mario Brothers or $30 for Skyrim.
Teachers who grade on a curve don't understand what a GPA is meant to represent.
Or they're choosing to use material that is more difficult than most of the students can handle, so the top students can better stand out with their mastery of the material. As a side benefit, it reminds the "A" students that however smart they think they are, they're still pretty dumb.
Repeat: go look at the LAW. Not the Post Office's comment about the law. The LAW says that if someone sends you merchandise you did not order, they cannot then charge you for that merchandise.
You seem to have missed my link to it. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/39/3009
It says:
(b) Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender.
And what does the law define as "unordered merchandise"?
For the purposes of this section, "unordered merchandise" means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.
Perhaps we're looking at different texts. Does the one you're looking at say anything different? Note that the one I found is based off of the legal code cited by the USPS FAQ.
Also realize that if the PS Vita is not "unordered merchandise", then the company would by your interpretation have the legal right to bill the recipient - even though that's not what the recipient ordered. Do you think that's the correct application of this law - people getting billed for merchandise the company mistakenly shipped to them?
Your mistaken impressions are not the law. I hate to burst your bubble, but I will repeat one more time: a goof on a mail-order purchase is not a "free gift". You're dreaming.
Legally, it is. The company is prohibited from billing you for it. The law designates it as a gift. That means the company cannot confiscate it, or demand compensation for it.
Practically, it is a gift, as the recipient is given the decision what to do with it. It may not be intended as a gift, and a moral person may decide to mail it back for that reason, but the law does not make room for intentions in this particular situation.
"Try this: you agree to buy a Sony webcam from somebody, and they accidentally give you a Fuji DSLR instead. When the mistake is discovered, they ask for the return of the DSLR."
If it was done in person, they can ask for it, the recipient can refuse, and they can go to court over it, and there will be a long discussion over what exact contract was agreed to, and how to resolve it.
Since it was done by mail, the law is in effect, and while they can go to court over it, the law does say that the unordered package is an unconditional gift - which means the giver no longer has a legal claim to the item in question.
This is NOT some stranger who just handed you merchandise. It was a customer-authorized transaction that went awry. They are not even remotely the same.
The customer authorized sending a particular good. The customer did not authorize sending the PS Vita, and absent something in the signed sales contract "authorizing" wrong packages, the law would judge it to be an unconditional gift.
On the plus side, this isn't exactly going to be common regardless of the law. Giving away expensive unordered merchandise isn't how you build a profitable business.
Yes, there is. The law specifically says that it is intended to prevent "unfair business practices". A mistake is not a "practice".
Your distinction does not have any legal effect.
Unordered package without "express consent" is an unconditional gift.
Just remove the USPS and imagine same scenario with them personally delivering the box to you to see the absurdity.
The "absurdity" exists precisely if the USPS is involved and a consumer friendly and business-unfriendly law was put on the books to combat a type of mail fraud.
The law as worded is designed to minimize hassle to the recipient; they do not need to take any type of legal action to blow off unasked for goods; legally, it's theirs, period.
"Hi, YYY Shop here, here's the package you ordered!" "Let's check... Hey, I ordered A, but this is B! You guys go away, I'm keeping this."
Try this: A stranger gives you a box without comment. You open the box, and find that there's something valuable inside. The stranger demands the box back or compensation.
With no communication at all when the goods were given to the recipient - what type of contract is this? Was it a conditional gift or unconditional gift, or just an offer to take a look at the contents of the box? Legally, what should happen?
In the case of postal items just getting dropped off at your residence, - lawmakers decided to clarify that such a situation is always an unconditional gift absent an explicit contract saying otherwise. (express consent)
If the purchase contract for the originally ordered goods contained a clause that the purchaser acknowledges that any wrong items shipped in the process were still the property of the retailers - then that could be considered explicit consent to receive the unordered goods for the purposes of that law. Otherwise, the law is clear that it's the recipient's.
The customers that TFA is about ORDERED merchandise to the company. The company MISTAKENLY sent them the wrong merchandise. That is not "intent to defraud". Unless it can be shown that it was done intentionally (for example, if they they tried to charge for the wrong item).
There is nothing in the law about "intent to defraud". Now the law exists because of past fraud, but the enforcement of the law is based on what it says, not what you think is more fair/reasonable.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/39/3009
For the purposes of this section, âoeunordered merchandiseâ means merchandise mailed without the prior expressed request or consent of the recipient.
Did the recipient expressly request or consent to being shipped a PS Vita? No. The company could try bargaining - return it for store credit and free stuff, perhaps - but legally, they would have no recourse if it happened in US jurisdiction.
So I figured it was mine for the taking, and it was. So I put it in my bag with my other laptop. Now at this point, I felt bad, as if I should do whatever was in my power to get this back to the unlucky fool.
You should have felt bad. You removed the laptop from its original location and were intending to keep it. Whether or not someone else would have stolen it, you were the one who stole it.
It is good that it found its way back to its owner, so you can feel good about that. And hopefully the lady learned something about not leaving devices unsupervised.
What should also be noted is that the US has basically the same legal framework. For all the parroting of the USPS advice on unsolicited gifts it's very noticeable that no one has mentioned the FTC's advice (write and offer to return it): http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0181-unordered-merchandise nor come up with an example of someone who got sued for refusing to return something that was clearly a shipping error.
Read the FTC's FAQ more carefully. Top of the list:
Q. Am I obligated to return or pay for merchandise I never ordered?
A. No. If you receive merchandise that you didn't order, you have a legal right to keep it as a free gift.
So - unordered? It's a simple Yes/No question - proven with the existence of an invoice. If it's unordered, it's legally a gift.
Writing to offer and return it is good advice, but you'll note that there are no legal penalties listed for not doing so - you'd be doing it out of the goodness of your heart. (And perhaps to preserve the business relationship)
Nothing of the sort. The "unsolicited merchandise" law is a law against unfair (anti-cimpetitive) trade practices. In order for it to be an anti-cimpetitive "trade practice" it has to be a trade practice. In other words, something you did on purpose.
INTENT is a big part of the law. You should look the word up some time.
They showed the intent to send an unsolicited package by paying a shipping company to send an un-ordered product to the receiver's home.
How else did the shipping company know to ship that package to that address - except by a specific shipment ordered by the retailer? That they should not have done that does not change the FACT that they did. Did the receiver solicit a PS Vita? No? Unsolicited.
It's certainly good to go above and beyond the law in rectifying honest mistakes, but don't read qualifications into the law that don't exist.
The fact that your insurance company decided to drop that that plan and only offer you a worse one, which is something they COULD HAVE DONE AT ANY TIME ANYWAY, is just down to your insurance company being douches, not a fault of the AHA or Obama.
And yet it wasn't canceled until now. Clearly a conspiracy against Obama, which is why he suddenly said he was issuing 1 year waivers for insurance plans, despite that never being in the "Affordable" Care Act.
Extra credit: research Internet Explorer and Spyglass. (Short story: Microsoft wakes up and smells the Internet, OMG! it's not just a 'fad' and it's not going away. Mac and Unix already have mature browsers, and third parties have browsers on Windows. Do something! Find a company making an internet browser on Windows. Enter Spyglass which makes the Spyglass browser. Spyglass wants some money. Microsoft negotiates with them to buy it for $100,000 up front, with a royalty percent of all sales. Guess how many copies of Internet Explorer that Microsoft 'sells' ? What does a royalty rate multiplied by zero work out to?)
A bad business decision by Spyglass does not make MS evil. MS paid them the money mutually agreed upon. The contract did not demand MS price the browser, nor did it provide provisions to handle bundling the browser for free.
You also seem to be mis-remembering some details. Per wiki, the browser was not purchased, but licensed with quarterly fees + royalties (with the royalties ending up at 0). That tells you they had an ongoing licensing contract that could be re-negotiated if Spyglass was unsatisfied with the contract. (though with no guarantee of a better result)
Or Microsoft backstabbing their partner IBM?
IBM was the Evil Empire back when MS was still a startup launched from a garage. So the claim that IBM was backstabbed doesn't seem likely. Care to elaborate?
Now the examples you cite are excellent examples to be very careful when doing business with MS, but that's a different level than "evil". MS hasn't sacrificed any babies or murdered anyone that I know of; and while some of their products have been horribly bad, the use of their products is still voluntary.