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And nearly every question regard modern science the philosophers bring up are outdated, moot, or not answerable by the nature of the question.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?