The causality argument for a single observation is NEVER strong, especially when that observation was a clinical treatment and not a controlled scientific experiment. If for every 1000 vaccines a doctor sees there is a single complication, then he is right to dismiss it as a statistical anomaly. Causal relationships don't exists if they are only present 0.1% of the time.

bad teachers won't be obsolete until there is an abundance of good teachers.

From TFA: He tested this hack on three randomly choosen hotel room doors, failed to open any. Had to stop to reprogram the device, and then managed to open one of the doors. I'll stick to being worried about corrupt security guards.

That's an odd comment for an article about the peer-review system catching a fraudster. The system will find it eventually, though the time scale can be quite large, especially if you don't publish in a 'hot' field. You can't expect the peer review system to catch every bit of fraud as it comes in, it doesn't appear like a glowing fireball in the sky. This is likely a small amount of fabricated data about medical proceedure that didn't happen. Moreover, the author is probably quite bright (just lazy) and had a good idea of what would be expected in those experiment, so it is easy to make up reasonable data.

More testicles mean more iron!

We clearly have a correlation between high rates of piracy and high online music sales. Since piracy has been around much longer than 'legal' music downloads, and the future cannot cause the past , the only logical conclusion is that piracy causes online sales.

I thought it was a different suffix to Idio

The problem he solved is determining the exact path of a projectile, when accounting for air resistance. The drag coefficient for air resistance depends nonlinearly on velocity, so when it is included in the model the equations become difficult to solve (previously impossible, but apparently now done. Though I haven't found any links to his actual work). Here is an example of setting up the problem, and then solving it numerically.

Eugene Polley

I like your first line of reasoning, men are less predisposed to make a long (life long) commitment, especially as a young adult. I don't think that should result in men ending more relationships however. I'm perfectly happy to keep having sex with a girl without commitment, and its more likely that she will end the relationship due to my lack of commitment.

Earlier ABA therapy could potentially have great effects. Once a child is diagnosed currently, their social skills have already become impaired. The therapy must first undo the damage and then reteach skills. By getting started at 6 months instead of two-three years, you could work on maintaining and building the skills they already have (most do develop some social skills before regressing) without spending the time fixing things. Combine this with the fact that a childs brain is more susceptible to be shaped by behavioural therapy the younger they and I could really see this being a benefit. Behavioural therapy is expensive though, so there is probably quite a bit of work to be done on getting the false positive rates down in a predictive scenario.

writing up "this failed" seems more productive if it's going to let you keep your job. At least by forcing people to write up failed results they are held more accountable. This way we can weed out all the terrible researchers that are contributing to the problem (and there are plenty of terrible ones).

How are we going to fill (and justify) all of our fancy new super jails if we can only go after people who are actually commiting crimes?

Not teachers and students, just teachers. A teacher should know that it is inappropriate to have students on your facebook. The fact that its a law must mean that there are too many teachers in Missouri who are crossing the line.

Algorithms for computing Pi would likely need to evaluate some sort of infinite sum. Two different algorithms, evaluating two differernt sums which both converge to Pi. At any finite number of terms in the sum, both algorithms would be correct only up to a certain number of digits. There could be a difference in the number of correct digits after running both algorithms for the same amount of time. The fact that both algorithms are equal with the exception of the last couple of digits suggests that they are both still converging to Pi and that no computational errors have been made.