http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/03/...

So it was a hate-group out to ruin an event intended to promote unity.

What pushes them to violence? It's not because they're all just "maniacs". It could just be the continuous provocation, social isolation, and the bigotry and abuse that they suffer daily than leads some to react violently.

When a Baltimore community reacts similarly in response to years of abuse at the hands of the police, only the bigots say that black people are "violent maniacs". When it's two Muslims reacting violently to long-standing, daily, oppression, what makes you think you're not just a closed-minded bigot when you make statements like that?

How would you react if an event was hosted specifically to feature pictures of your mother molesting children or whatever might upset you? What if you and your family were subject to daily abuse and social isolation, and these sort of events were regularly held with the sole intent of provoking you? Would that make you more likely to lash-out or less likely?

This has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with bigotry and hate. Let's stop pretending that the known hate-group responsible for this absurd event has the moral high-ground.

Well, if your intention is to "provoke violent reactions" then it's a great success. If it's to put an end to extremism, then you're failing miserably. I suspect it's the former, and thus simply an outlet for bigotry.

If you actually want change, try thinking about why these ridiculous events "provoke violent reactions" and what can be done to change that. Hint:Picking at that scab isn't going to make it heal any faster.

What amazes me is that idiots still think "draw Muhammad" "protests" are relevant and meaningful. That ship has sailed. It's just an outlet for bigotry at this point.

If you want actual change, you're going to have to actually do something useful. How about working to help them better integrate into their local communities? If you really want Muslims to "lighten up" further isolating them is counterproductive.

Then stop using jQuery. Your users will thank you.

I've seen it included with CCleaner and Avast. It's a plague.

I cannot disagree, which is upsetting as my wife and I discussed it and both came to the conclusion that "it's fine". Thanks for the healthy does of reality.

What gave you that impression? What I've written is about as controversial as Kuhn -- indeed, a great deal is borrowed directly from him. I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing against, but it certainly isn't anything I've written!

You seem to have this odd belief that science progresses iteratively toward truth. It's a strange belief, to be sure, but one that, at least to some small degree, was implied by Popper. (That is to say, I can understand both the attraction and the misconception.) Science, by necessity, cannot lead to truth. Knowledge gained through scientific means is always provisional. If that were not the case, progress would be impossible.

I'm not sure even the most ardent falsificationist would accept that unusual interpretation. Duhem does a far better job than I can of explaining what's wrong in The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Happily, I found the bit important to this discussion described in this equally useful paper: Falsification and The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Lucky

I'm going to guess that you don't have a formal background in science. From what you've written, I'd be willing to bet you're more of an interested layperson as that's the kind of nonsense you'll see written on blogs and forums by the undereducated "defenders of science". I've seen little good come from those groups, and an awful lot of nonsense. Steer clear of them. They've done far more harm to the public understanding of science than even the most ambitious young-earth creationist has ever dreamed.

Short of a university education, which is a bit much to demand of you, I can make some recommendations. Whitehead as a wonderful introduction at the beginning of Science and the Modern World which is well-worth your time just for the historical overview. Kuhn and Popper should follow. Even if you only bother with a summary of their more influential ideas, it should give you a better grounding.

Yes, that's why we abandoned the pseudo-science of medicine ages ago. Oh, wait...

Given the little data we have, psychology is 'average'. We won't know if they're doing exceptionally well, or exceptionally poorly, until more studies are done not only on reproducibility in psychology, but in other fields as well.

Reproducibility problems aren't often investigated, and very few fields are actively studying the issue. I suspect that we'll find serious problems in virtually all branches of science as these studies continue. Nature has already taken action. I expect this crisis to hit even physics which is certainly not immune to controversy.

There's also the question of fraud, to which no branch of science is immune. It would be difficult to determine, but very helpful, if reproducibility problems could be divided between methodological problems and fraudulent or falsified results. It's difficult enough to stop computer generated articles from slipping through. How much more difficult would it be to find "real" papers with falsified data?

If nothing else, this should stress the importance of replication in all fields. Scientists are humans, after all, not the purely objective machines you imagine them to be. It's a dangerous belief, often held by non-scientist "science fans", which ultimately undermines the whole enterprise in the minds of the public.

Like epistemology. Oh, wait. That's absolutely essential to modern science. My bad. I didn't mean to disturb your delusion.

What amazes me is that someone with no scientific background can make such absurd statements about a field, of which they have absolutely no understanding, with such conviction.

Nonsense is nonsense, regardless of the intent. There's little more dangerous to the public understanding of science than bad arguments and nonsense offered in defense of science.

Here, I say that if it's settled, then it isn't science as science can not be 'settled'. Science wouldn't work if such a thing were possible.

Equally, science is indeed frequently overturned. It is designed to be overturned! It could not progress otherwise. Further promulgating the myth of successive refinement (like the person to which I replied) is deeply harmful as it implies that science leads ultimately to truth. (Which, as you know, is impossible.) It sounds like a nice thing for people to believe, sure, but such a fundamental misunderstanding is deeply harmful to the public understanding of science. What would they think, then, when science is necessarily overturned as it advances?

I don't see why you think it's overturned infrequently. Even foundational aspects of science, in nearly every branch, have undergone significant revisions even over just the last century. That's a good thing. It means science is working. If more people understood science, they'd know that it's a positive thing as well. Hiding that fact, which you seem to find uncomfortable, just to get more people to "believe in" or "trust" science isn't helpful. They just end up believing in nonsense they mistakenly call science.

Yes, I'm a terrible person. Of course, my apps don't have serious performance issues. Deal with the devil and all that.

That's not even a little bit true.

It's a popular operating system developed by Microsoft, a large software company headquartered in Redmond, WA.

As this is the first time you've heard about that company and their products, you have no reason to care.

Then it's not science.

You're not familiar with science, are you?

Science cheerleaders like you have done more harm to the public understanding of science in the past decade than every creationist in history.